What do you think?
Rate this book
Stuart Saga #7
The Three Crowns
When an empire is at stake, one woman stands between the past and the future
In post-Restoration England, King Charles II has fathered numerous bastards, but not a single legitimate heir. So it falls to his brother, James, Duke of York, to head the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland-the three crowns of Britain. But James's devout Catholicism, and desire to return Britain to the rule of Rome, does not sit well with his subjects and his time as king is sure to be short.
However, born leader and brilliant soldier, William of Orange, has other ideas. By marrying Mary, James' fifteen year old daughter and heir, he will position himself perfectly to seize the English crown. Mary must also decide how much power to cede to William, should she keep him as Consort or let him rule beside her as King?
Captivating in its historical detail, lush and sweeping in its scope, and unforgettable in its dramatic depiction of relationships between monarchs and families, The Three Crowns is the singular story of the only joint sovereigns in British history.
390 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1965
55 people are currently reading
775 people want to read
About the author
Jean Plaidy
189 books1,591 followersEleanor Alice Burford, Mrs. George Percival Hibbert was a British author of about 200 historical novels, most of them under the pen name Jean Plaidy which had sold 14 million copies by the time of her death. She chose to use various names because of the differences in subject matter between her books; the best-known, apart from Plaidy, are Victoria Holt (56 million) and Philippa Carr (3 million). Lesser known were the novels Hibbert published under her maiden name Eleanor Burford, or the pseudonyms of Elbur Ford, Kathleen Kellow and Ellalice Tate. Many of her readers under one penname never suspected her other identities.
-Wikipedia
-Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
April 29, 2013
The Three Crowns was impeccably researched. Jean Plaidy made an effort to stay authentic and she did. She also portrayed the values and beliefs of the Stuart era brilliantly. This is an amazing piece of historical fiction. It isn't even fiction in my opinion- The Three Crowns is that good.
I loved the way the characters interacted with each other- particularly William's and Mary's. Sure, theirs might have been a turbulent relationship and extremely unbalanced, but considering the attitudes people had to relationships back then, it was a match made in heaven.
All in all, The Three Crowns is a masterpiece.
I loved the way the characters interacted with each other- particularly William's and Mary's. Sure, theirs might have been a turbulent relationship and extremely unbalanced, but considering the attitudes people had to relationships back then, it was a match made in heaven.
All in all, The Three Crowns is a masterpiece.
January 20, 2022
“The Three Crowns” covers a period of England’s history that I’m not too familiar with, so I looked forward to this one. Sadly, it’s one of those novels that’s so dry it makes you thirsty.
It uses backstory early on, which would’ve been better filtered in later through dialogue to make it more active, or cut out altogether, as it isn’t essential. The overuse of “had” (past perfect) in the opening chapter makes it a passive start:
“How she had hated the lying Berkeley! He had desired her and because she had refused his attentions, this was his revenge. So distressed had she been that her attendants had feared for her life; and in her despair she had begged the Bishop of Winchester to come to her, and before him and the Duchess of Ormonde she had taken a solemn vow swearing that Berkeley had never been her lover and that the father of her child was James, Duke of York.”
The above *reports* on what happens, rather than *dramatizing* the events. That’s the problem with using the past perfect “had” – it reports on the scene as opposed to taking the reader into the action as it unfolds. It’s also a filler word, as the narrative is in the past tense. Every “had” in the above quote could’ve been cut or replaced.
A similar thing happens around one-third of the way into the story. After following events set during the times of Charles II’s reign, with the main characters being Charles, his brother James, and James’s daughters Mary and Anne. Yet, when we reach a time when Mary is fifteen and betrothed to William of Orange, the next chapter jumps back 27 years to William’s birth.
I’m not a fan of historical fiction that doesn’t keep to a linear path. A few months to a year is fair enough, but 27 years? Other readers may well disagree with me, but I feel like this disrupts the narrative flow to a large extent.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the events following the sudden leap back were dramatic and exciting. In this case, most of what’s presented reads like a textbook. For example:
“When William was sixteen a plot was made to restore him to the Stadtholderate. William could not be blamed for taking part in it but John de Witte, seeing the direction in which public opinion was turning, decided it was wise to admit him to the Council of State.”
The author starts from William’s birth and speeds through 27 years until she’s back to where she broke off from. Apart from the passive textbook-style writing, it’s also annoying when a certain character who’s died earlier in the story is alive again. Events that have happened are also alluded to. It’s as repetitive as it is passive.
I can see no reason why the events in William’s life couldn’t have been slotted in alongside events happening at the English court. It would’ve worked much better to have kept it linear, swapping between William and the English, and finally uniting the two threads with William’s marriage to Mary.
William III, Mary II, and Anne are three of the five monarchs of England I know least about (Georges I & II being the others), plus my knowledge of James II is scanty, so I can’t state for fact that the author is wrong – as she did her research – but I find it hard to believe that those in the line of succession would go on so much about it in such a precise way. We regularly get this kind of thing:
‘“If the King has no children and the Duke no son, the Lady Mary could be Queen.”’
To me, it feels like the author is reminding the reader about the line of succession, as opposed to her writing about what really happened.
Not long after the previous quote, James tells Mary:
“‘If the King has no children and when he and I are dead, it will be your turn.’”
A little later, Charles tells James:
“‘If neither of us get a son Mary could be Queen and Anne could follow her.’”
This last quote strikes me as one of this author’s occasional traits, namely writing with the advantage of hindsight. Why, at a time when Mary and Anne are children, would Charles add the part of Anne following Mary? Why would he assume at such a time that if Mary did succeed to the throne that she’d have no heir and Anne would follow? It’s one heck of an assumption. I don’t recall Charles II being a profit. It’s also a bit too prophetic for him to suggest that James would never have a son and further imply that Mary would take the crown, which makes the part about Anne all the more ludicrous. The author knows that Anne followed Mary – Charles II did not and could not.
When it jumps back 27 years and ploughs thorough William’s youth, this future English monarch keeps predicting he’ll be king because of the three crowns prophesy that came with his birth, which he believes means he’ll one day rule England, Scotland, and Ireland. He did, of course, but the number of times the three crowns prophesy is mentioned is annoying. Again, it feels like the author is writing with hindsight, though having said that, I don’t know enough bout William III to contradict whether he really did spend his life believing this prophecy was true. Either way, it’s overused in this novel.
One instance where the author is without question writing with the benefit of hindsight is this regarding Princess Anne:
“She was looking ahead to the day when she would have the throne.”
The above quote is based on Mary not having any heir, yet at this stage Mary is only 24. Anne is just two years younger, so it’s highly unbelievable to have Anne thinking of her destiny as Queen of England. Anne couldn’t predict the future. It’s unrealistic and ridiculous to have 22-year-old Anne think this.
Like many of the historical novels I’ve read, this author puts so much effort in getting the history elements correct that essential creative writing skills and quality elements of style are neglected. Main problem being too much “telling” and not enough “showing”. Don’t tell the reader that “Anne looked astonished” or “Peterborough was aghast” – show their emotion with action, or body language, or a facial expression.
Phrases like the following quotes are blatant telling:
“It was clear from his attitude that he brought bad news”, and “it was obvious that she was a little uneasy”. Whenever an author uses “clear/clearly” or “obvious/obviously”, they’re not showing the reader a damn thing. It’s prose at its most passive.
Such as “the baby was brought to show him” shows the reader nothing. It’s a dry fact written in the passive voice.
Reported speech is another reason why this novel is so dry and passive:
“He explained to her the need for them to have sons; their son, he told her, might well be King of England”, and: “When James came to see her she told him that she wanted the child baptized as a Catholic.”
The author could’ve dramatized the above quotes by using dialogue and body language. That way, the reader would “see” what was going on, rather than being “told” about it.
The following quote is all passive prose and reported speech that could’ve been dramatized and therefore made into an engaging scene(s):
“He would ask her opinion and then superimpose his own. But he was at least taking notice of her. He showed an interest in the poultry garden she had set up and explained to her that she could have aquatic species of fowls because the canals provided the necessary water.
Mary listened eagerly; William’s anxiety decreased.”
If I want hard facts, I read non-fiction. When I read a novel, I want drama and action, not something that reads like an uninspired newspaper report.
Sometimes, when there is a decent amount of dialogue, the scene suffers from having no sense of place. After the opening of a scene quoted below, it goes into a dialogue exchange, and while we know where the prince and princess are, we don’t know where Anne Trelawny and Mrs Langford are:
“Anne Trelawny and Mrs. Langford were talking of the affair while the Prince and Princess were at the theater.”
This is also another book in which tears are described as “silent”:
“Mary saw the tears silently falling down Elizabeth’s cheeks.”
Are tears ever loud?
There’s also an overuse of “very”, which is a sure sign that the novel hasn’t been redrafted enough times.
Every word should count. A new author can be forgiven for the odd lazy word or one too many adverbs, but this prolific author had written over 40 books by the time this one came out. If I didn’t know that, I’d assume this was her debut novel.
Something about Jean Plaidy’s books keep me coming back for more. Perhaps it’s her obvious love for English and French history, which I share, that draws me back. I wish she’d focused less on turning out as greater quantity of novels as possible and concentrated more on quality writing. A novel like this one should be revised 15–20 times, yet this at best feels like a third draft.
It uses backstory early on, which would’ve been better filtered in later through dialogue to make it more active, or cut out altogether, as it isn’t essential. The overuse of “had” (past perfect) in the opening chapter makes it a passive start:
“How she had hated the lying Berkeley! He had desired her and because she had refused his attentions, this was his revenge. So distressed had she been that her attendants had feared for her life; and in her despair she had begged the Bishop of Winchester to come to her, and before him and the Duchess of Ormonde she had taken a solemn vow swearing that Berkeley had never been her lover and that the father of her child was James, Duke of York.”
The above *reports* on what happens, rather than *dramatizing* the events. That’s the problem with using the past perfect “had” – it reports on the scene as opposed to taking the reader into the action as it unfolds. It’s also a filler word, as the narrative is in the past tense. Every “had” in the above quote could’ve been cut or replaced.
A similar thing happens around one-third of the way into the story. After following events set during the times of Charles II’s reign, with the main characters being Charles, his brother James, and James’s daughters Mary and Anne. Yet, when we reach a time when Mary is fifteen and betrothed to William of Orange, the next chapter jumps back 27 years to William’s birth.
I’m not a fan of historical fiction that doesn’t keep to a linear path. A few months to a year is fair enough, but 27 years? Other readers may well disagree with me, but I feel like this disrupts the narrative flow to a large extent.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the events following the sudden leap back were dramatic and exciting. In this case, most of what’s presented reads like a textbook. For example:
“When William was sixteen a plot was made to restore him to the Stadtholderate. William could not be blamed for taking part in it but John de Witte, seeing the direction in which public opinion was turning, decided it was wise to admit him to the Council of State.”
The author starts from William’s birth and speeds through 27 years until she’s back to where she broke off from. Apart from the passive textbook-style writing, it’s also annoying when a certain character who’s died earlier in the story is alive again. Events that have happened are also alluded to. It’s as repetitive as it is passive.
I can see no reason why the events in William’s life couldn’t have been slotted in alongside events happening at the English court. It would’ve worked much better to have kept it linear, swapping between William and the English, and finally uniting the two threads with William’s marriage to Mary.
William III, Mary II, and Anne are three of the five monarchs of England I know least about (Georges I & II being the others), plus my knowledge of James II is scanty, so I can’t state for fact that the author is wrong – as she did her research – but I find it hard to believe that those in the line of succession would go on so much about it in such a precise way. We regularly get this kind of thing:
‘“If the King has no children and the Duke no son, the Lady Mary could be Queen.”’
To me, it feels like the author is reminding the reader about the line of succession, as opposed to her writing about what really happened.
Not long after the previous quote, James tells Mary:
“‘If the King has no children and when he and I are dead, it will be your turn.’”
A little later, Charles tells James:
“‘If neither of us get a son Mary could be Queen and Anne could follow her.’”
This last quote strikes me as one of this author’s occasional traits, namely writing with the advantage of hindsight. Why, at a time when Mary and Anne are children, would Charles add the part of Anne following Mary? Why would he assume at such a time that if Mary did succeed to the throne that she’d have no heir and Anne would follow? It’s one heck of an assumption. I don’t recall Charles II being a profit. It’s also a bit too prophetic for him to suggest that James would never have a son and further imply that Mary would take the crown, which makes the part about Anne all the more ludicrous. The author knows that Anne followed Mary – Charles II did not and could not.
When it jumps back 27 years and ploughs thorough William’s youth, this future English monarch keeps predicting he’ll be king because of the three crowns prophesy that came with his birth, which he believes means he’ll one day rule England, Scotland, and Ireland. He did, of course, but the number of times the three crowns prophesy is mentioned is annoying. Again, it feels like the author is writing with hindsight, though having said that, I don’t know enough bout William III to contradict whether he really did spend his life believing this prophecy was true. Either way, it’s overused in this novel.
One instance where the author is without question writing with the benefit of hindsight is this regarding Princess Anne:
“She was looking ahead to the day when she would have the throne.”
The above quote is based on Mary not having any heir, yet at this stage Mary is only 24. Anne is just two years younger, so it’s highly unbelievable to have Anne thinking of her destiny as Queen of England. Anne couldn’t predict the future. It’s unrealistic and ridiculous to have 22-year-old Anne think this.
Like many of the historical novels I’ve read, this author puts so much effort in getting the history elements correct that essential creative writing skills and quality elements of style are neglected. Main problem being too much “telling” and not enough “showing”. Don’t tell the reader that “Anne looked astonished” or “Peterborough was aghast” – show their emotion with action, or body language, or a facial expression.
Phrases like the following quotes are blatant telling:
“It was clear from his attitude that he brought bad news”, and “it was obvious that she was a little uneasy”. Whenever an author uses “clear/clearly” or “obvious/obviously”, they’re not showing the reader a damn thing. It’s prose at its most passive.
Such as “the baby was brought to show him” shows the reader nothing. It’s a dry fact written in the passive voice.
Reported speech is another reason why this novel is so dry and passive:
“He explained to her the need for them to have sons; their son, he told her, might well be King of England”, and: “When James came to see her she told him that she wanted the child baptized as a Catholic.”
The author could’ve dramatized the above quotes by using dialogue and body language. That way, the reader would “see” what was going on, rather than being “told” about it.
The following quote is all passive prose and reported speech that could’ve been dramatized and therefore made into an engaging scene(s):
“He would ask her opinion and then superimpose his own. But he was at least taking notice of her. He showed an interest in the poultry garden she had set up and explained to her that she could have aquatic species of fowls because the canals provided the necessary water.
Mary listened eagerly; William’s anxiety decreased.”
If I want hard facts, I read non-fiction. When I read a novel, I want drama and action, not something that reads like an uninspired newspaper report.
Sometimes, when there is a decent amount of dialogue, the scene suffers from having no sense of place. After the opening of a scene quoted below, it goes into a dialogue exchange, and while we know where the prince and princess are, we don’t know where Anne Trelawny and Mrs Langford are:
“Anne Trelawny and Mrs. Langford were talking of the affair while the Prince and Princess were at the theater.”
This is also another book in which tears are described as “silent”:
“Mary saw the tears silently falling down Elizabeth’s cheeks.”
Are tears ever loud?
There’s also an overuse of “very”, which is a sure sign that the novel hasn’t been redrafted enough times.
Every word should count. A new author can be forgiven for the odd lazy word or one too many adverbs, but this prolific author had written over 40 books by the time this one came out. If I didn’t know that, I’d assume this was her debut novel.
Something about Jean Plaidy’s books keep me coming back for more. Perhaps it’s her obvious love for English and French history, which I share, that draws me back. I wish she’d focused less on turning out as greater quantity of novels as possible and concentrated more on quality writing. A novel like this one should be revised 15–20 times, yet this at best feels like a third draft.
August 11, 2024
I know little about William & Mary so I will assume this is near the actual history of that era. The first part is given over exclusively to Mary’s early life. Mary is in line of succession & expected to become Queen of England.
William is Prince of Orange (Holland) he is also in line of succession. She is 15, cheerful & fun loving. He is 27, grave & serious. They are wed & went to live in Holland. After death of her uncle & abdication of her father they return to England as king & queen. There ends the novel.
What? There it ends? I feel cheated. Seems like more of a story than we are given in 380 pages.
William is Prince of Orange (Holland) he is also in line of succession. She is 15, cheerful & fun loving. He is 27, grave & serious. They are wed & went to live in Holland. After death of her uncle & abdication of her father they return to England as king & queen. There ends the novel.
What? There it ends? I feel cheated. Seems like more of a story than we are given in 380 pages.
November 12, 2023
Written exclusively in telling, never showing, and like nothing so much as an incredibly repetitive, gossipy magazine written by the kind of person who thinks men can't help having affairs and being a shit head is hereditary. Boring and vacuous.
October 25, 2020
While I've read quite a few books that feature William and Mary, this was the first book I've read that was dedicated solely to them. I was under the impression that the majority of this book would be about their reign...I was wrong. A huge portion (over 50% on the Kindle) is detailing Mary Stuarts' childhood. Her life and relationships with her father James, Duke of York, her uncle King Charles II, and her cousin James, Duke of Monmouth. There are a couple of short chapters that rush through William's childhood in Holland and how he came to marry Mary. The final chapters are pages and pages of William's horrid and cruel treatment of Mary, and his quest to take the English crown from James II, Mary's father.
While I was surprised at how much of the book was following Mary's younger years, it was still enjoyable. Mary's privileged yet simple childhood was sweet, and seeing her relationships with her various friends and family members blossom was entertaining. However, once she marries William, Mary becomes a complete doormat. William's treatment of her is just terrible, and her refusal to stand up for herself was infuriating and very unbelievable.
Now, in all the other books I've read that mention Mary and William, they all agree that their marriage definitely started out on rocky ground. Mary did NOT want to get married, but her uncle King Charles II felt it was necessary to bring peace between the English and the Dutch. She was still very young, and her new husband was a very solemn man who hardly ever showed his emotions. Over time though, they truly came to love and respect one another. This is the first time I've ever read about William being downright cold to Mary. According to Ms. Plaidy, the only reason William showed her affection at the very end is because Mary promised him that he would be King to her Queen, instead of just her consort (since Mary was next in line for the throne of England, that made her Queen...William could only become a King if Mary allowed it). After the way he treated her all those years in Holland...ignoring her, ridiculing her, carrying on an affair with one of her ladies, WHY would she grant him Kingship?
In the end, while this was a decent read, I don't think it's a very realistic picture of William and Mary's marriage. Yes, I know this is historical fiction, but most HF keeps things relatively accurate. Also, we don't get to read ANYTHING about the actual reign of William and Mary. The book ends right as Mary's returning to England to claim her throne...this was a big letdown (for me at least). Overall, Jean Plaidy is a great storyteller. Even though I didn't like the latter half of this book, it certainly moved along at a great pace and was almost impossible to put down. Though I didn't really care for this particular book, I will DEFINITELY continue to read her stuff. So while I recommend Ms. Plaidy, I don't really recommend this book.
While I was surprised at how much of the book was following Mary's younger years, it was still enjoyable. Mary's privileged yet simple childhood was sweet, and seeing her relationships with her various friends and family members blossom was entertaining. However, once she marries William, Mary becomes a complete doormat. William's treatment of her is just terrible, and her refusal to stand up for herself was infuriating and very unbelievable.
Now, in all the other books I've read that mention Mary and William, they all agree that their marriage definitely started out on rocky ground. Mary did NOT want to get married, but her uncle King Charles II felt it was necessary to bring peace between the English and the Dutch. She was still very young, and her new husband was a very solemn man who hardly ever showed his emotions. Over time though, they truly came to love and respect one another. This is the first time I've ever read about William being downright cold to Mary. According to Ms. Plaidy, the only reason William showed her affection at the very end is because Mary promised him that he would be King to her Queen, instead of just her consort (since Mary was next in line for the throne of England, that made her Queen...William could only become a King if Mary allowed it). After the way he treated her all those years in Holland...ignoring her, ridiculing her, carrying on an affair with one of her ladies, WHY would she grant him Kingship?
In the end, while this was a decent read, I don't think it's a very realistic picture of William and Mary's marriage. Yes, I know this is historical fiction, but most HF keeps things relatively accurate. Also, we don't get to read ANYTHING about the actual reign of William and Mary. The book ends right as Mary's returning to England to claim her throne...this was a big letdown (for me at least). Overall, Jean Plaidy is a great storyteller. Even though I didn't like the latter half of this book, it certainly moved along at a great pace and was almost impossible to put down. Though I didn't really care for this particular book, I will DEFINITELY continue to read her stuff. So while I recommend Ms. Plaidy, I don't really recommend this book.
September 1, 2018
Truly loved this book. Would be surprised if I was disappointed in a Jean Plaidy book though. This is the story of Mary II and Prince William of Orange. Mary was forced to marry William when she was only 15 and William was around 28. She was not happy about that and made it known to everyone. William was a very stern puritan and intended to ensure Mary's submissiveness to him. His intent on marrying her was to be King of England, Scotland and Ireland and he was a very cold and cruel husband emotionally to her. She very rarely challenged him and I found myself very angry at her and the few times she rose to the occasion I was hopeful that she would continue this way but she let me down time and time again...sigh... This book is #7 in the Stuart Saga which I am enjoying very much.
April 19, 2019
Really enjoyed this Jean Plaidy book from her Stuart Saga. During his reign, Charles II had no legitimate heirs for the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland. His Brother James is a Catholic and wishes to return to the rule of Rome. William of Orange has a plan to marry James daughter Mary and take the English throne for himself. William comes across as not a nice person who treats Mary in a bad way. She is only 15 when she gets married. But William takes Mary back to Holland to teach her he is in charge. After the Glorious Revolution King James flees England and William and Mary become the only joint sovereigns in British history.
April 5, 2024
Honestly, this book is completely useless. Plaidy's Stuart Saga consists of 7 books that cover Mary Queen of Scots until Queen Anne I. 3 of those books are about Charles II, and 2 of those books are about Mary and Anne. The Three Crowns covers the latter half of the reign of Charles II, as well as Mary's early years and life in Holland. I had hoped this book would cover the reign of James II, but there is nothing new in this book, making it disappointing and superfluous.
The writing is typical Plaidy when it comes to her third-person narratives. She jumps around from perspective to perspective so that readers hear from a variety of characters: Anne Hyde, Elizabeth Villiers, William of Orange, and of course the principal monarchs. It provides interest, but ultimately nothing noteworthy.
Skip this high level story about the Stuarts. There are other, better versions even within the series. It doesn't do these dyanmic figures justice.
The writing is typical Plaidy when it comes to her third-person narratives. She jumps around from perspective to perspective so that readers hear from a variety of characters: Anne Hyde, Elizabeth Villiers, William of Orange, and of course the principal monarchs. It provides interest, but ultimately nothing noteworthy.
Skip this high level story about the Stuarts. There are other, better versions even within the series. It doesn't do these dyanmic figures justice.
March 17, 2022
A bit of a sad tale
A sad tale. Mary Stewart has not been depicted in the best light. I am not a history buff and don't claim to know anything about Mary Stewart or her husband William of Orange. However, I will look them up, and hope they were a better King and Queen, than this tale has the intamated.
A sad tale. Mary Stewart has not been depicted in the best light. I am not a history buff and don't claim to know anything about Mary Stewart or her husband William of Orange. However, I will look them up, and hope they were a better King and Queen, than this tale has the intamated.
June 17, 2022
Another enjoyable book in the Stuart series. Again, I’m learning about British history. However, this is the fourth book based on the period of Charles II and some aspects have been repeated too often. However, the treachery of royals and the difficulties faced by women in that period were well depicted.
December 18, 2017
Prequel to the reign of William and Mary
A bit disappointing that most of the book dealt with the early years of William and Mary and nothing of their years as King and Queen of England.
A bit disappointing that most of the book dealt with the early years of William and Mary and nothing of their years as King and Queen of England.
September 19, 2022
I love Jean Plaidy and in this book she tells the story of Queen Mary and William, Prince of Orange. A really interesting insight into times in the Stuart era and the complexities of the Royal family at the time.
November 25, 2019
Very sad story of Mary and Anne.
September 13, 2022
William and Mary
I really enjoyed this book and can’t wait to read the next in the series. However I didn’t realize how weepy Mary was and William was a beast.
I really enjoyed this book and can’t wait to read the next in the series. However I didn’t realize how weepy Mary was and William was a beast.
July 19, 2024
A re-read to brush up on my beloved Stuarts.
May 4, 2025
I normally enjoy reading unlikeable characters (it's often good fun) but rarely have I read of a character with less redeemable qualities than William III.
December 6, 2025
I tried not to read any historical fiction about my capstone topic all semester but I finally gave in with like one week left in the class :/
March 3, 2017
This book is really about the time leading up to William & Mary taking the throne.
May 28, 2013
The Story
Follows the life of Mary II of William-and-Mary fame, from early childhood to the time she overthrows her father and becomes Queen of England.
The Good
Plaidy shows her usual keen psychological insight in giving us her Mary. This is not an easy thing considering that Mary is not the easiest historical figure to get a grip on. As an adolescent, she was not noted either for keen intellect or precocious political acumen, or for anything that portended the pivotal role she would one day play in British politics. She cried easily, was prone to crushes on other girls and to self-dramatization. Her marriage to William was not a love match, so her eagerness to please him later on is also hard to explain. And she seems to have had very little interest in politics, but slightly more in religion.
Plaidy has come closer than most in shaping a series of inexplicable actions into a three dimensional individual.
The Bad
This is definitely not one of Plaidy's best works. There are frequent repetitions, scenes which do not ring true, and parts that are either perfunctory or didactic. Unusually for a Plaidy book, I found it heavy going at times and all too easy to put down.
Historical Accuracy
Excellent (as usual.)
Follows the life of Mary II of William-and-Mary fame, from early childhood to the time she overthrows her father and becomes Queen of England.
The Good
Plaidy shows her usual keen psychological insight in giving us her Mary. This is not an easy thing considering that Mary is not the easiest historical figure to get a grip on. As an adolescent, she was not noted either for keen intellect or precocious political acumen, or for anything that portended the pivotal role she would one day play in British politics. She cried easily, was prone to crushes on other girls and to self-dramatization. Her marriage to William was not a love match, so her eagerness to please him later on is also hard to explain. And she seems to have had very little interest in politics, but slightly more in religion.
Plaidy has come closer than most in shaping a series of inexplicable actions into a three dimensional individual.
The Bad
This is definitely not one of Plaidy's best works. There are frequent repetitions, scenes which do not ring true, and parts that are either perfunctory or didactic. Unusually for a Plaidy book, I found it heavy going at times and all too easy to put down.
Historical Accuracy
Excellent (as usual.)
March 30, 2011
The Three Crowns tells the story of William and Mary of Orange, both who were niece and nephew to their uncle King Charles the I of England, Mary through her father the future King James II, and William through his mother Princess Mary Stuart. When the Catholic James II becomes king of England after his protestant brother's reign Mary and her husband depose her father to become the rulers of England themselves. Technically Mary is next in line, although she gives her husband the power which is why you're used to hear William and Mary of Orange compared to most other monarch's where their spouse isn't mentioned.
I know some can find history dull, but the amount of scandal involved (to start with the fact that Mary steals the crown from her father) I don't think it should be. But more than that Plaidy has a way of the stories coming alive. I have read some of her other books on Mary & William, so I was familiar with the story. But even though in a way I was reading the same basic story by the same author it still captivated me and felt fresh.
I know some can find history dull, but the amount of scandal involved (to start with the fact that Mary steals the crown from her father) I don't think it should be. But more than that Plaidy has a way of the stories coming alive. I have read some of her other books on Mary & William, so I was familiar with the story. But even though in a way I was reading the same basic story by the same author it still captivated me and felt fresh.
May 24, 2010
I have never read about William and Mary before and knew absolutely nothing about them (besides the college and knowing that he was Dutch and "of Orange"), so my rating of this book has more to do with the subject matter than the actual book itself. I found William's treatment of Mary appalling, and I could not stand how she constantly bent over backwards to please him. She was like a doormat - she let William walk all over her. This book ends right when they make their way into England, so maybe their relationship changes for the better (I'll know more when I get to the next book). I'm definitely going to pick up some non-fiction about Mary to see if her portrayal in this book is accurate (Plaidy is usually pretty good, so I'm thinking this was how Mary acted).
April 24, 2011
Plaidy's book is a researched and very well told account (historically) of Mary and her marriage to William of Orange. It's just not one of my favorite stories. Mary is an overly sensitive character very much coddled and loved by her parents and uncle, Charles II of England. Unhappy in Holland after her marriage, William's stoic Dutch nature has no patience for Mary's emotional outbursts and is worried he will become a consort to Mary's rule in England since she is next in line to the throne. It is a coming of age story, but more importantly, it is a testament to what most marriages were like at this time.
June 30, 2014
This was just an OK book. The title: The Three Crowns: The Story of William and Mary is a little misleading. The story covered the time of Mary and William's childhood and up to the time they assumed the crowns, but stopped there. I was very disappointed that there was nothing about the time they ruled! And the author just goes on and on about Mary crying all the time and being completely smitten and submissive to William. The characters were not fleshed out well at all. This is why I normally don't read historical novels like this and try to stick to actual biographies.
July 9, 2015
I know I enjoy a book when I can't put it down. Or if I do, I can't wait for long without picking it up again.
I have enjoyed reading this book. I saw a number of them in the streets of Nairobi. I didn't buy them, unfortunately.
What is in this book is the story of life in the England's royal court. The novel starts with the life of James, the heir to the throne, which is in the hands of his brother Charles. This is so because he is the father of Mary, the future wife of William, the dutch leader.
A book not very popular but which I highly recommend to lovers of historical fiction.
I have enjoyed reading this book. I saw a number of them in the streets of Nairobi. I didn't buy them, unfortunately.
What is in this book is the story of life in the England's royal court. The novel starts with the life of James, the heir to the throne, which is in the hands of his brother Charles. This is so because he is the father of Mary, the future wife of William, the dutch leader.
A book not very popular but which I highly recommend to lovers of historical fiction.
February 6, 2011
The story of William and Mary.
I'm not as familiar with this part of English royal history as the more infamous Henry the 8th or Queen Elizabeth, but it was just as intriguing. Especially since William (of Orange) was Dutch and that appeals to pride in my heritage. However, since I did not realize that this was part #7 of the story, I was a bit slow figuring out who everyone was in the beginning.
I'm not as familiar with this part of English royal history as the more infamous Henry the 8th or Queen Elizabeth, but it was just as intriguing. Especially since William (of Orange) was Dutch and that appeals to pride in my heritage. However, since I did not realize that this was part #7 of the story, I was a bit slow figuring out who everyone was in the beginning.
September 7, 2011
I thoroughly enjoyed this. Along with being great history of a lesser written-about period, it was also a great view into relationships of this era. Yes, William is quite a boorish brat and manipulative husband, but most likely no more so than many other husbands of that era. And while Mary's complacency is infuriating by today's standards, she was going her duty as she was raised. I can't wait to read the next!
August 27, 2020
Loved this when I first read it. The story of William of Orange and Mary. An uneasy marriage to start growing into a solid alliance by the time they began to reign as King and Queen of Britain. Not a love match at all! He took a mistress Elizabeth Villiers but this was not overly passionate alliance and following the death of his wife from smallpox his grief led to the severing of that relationship.
March 20, 2012
Not perfect (a bit repetitive, especially in the beginning and near the end, and there is this part where William muses about his cousins when they could not have been born yet) but it appearas to be well researched (learned a lot) and it was an enjoyable read. Especially nice because there is barely any fiction out there about the House of Orange.
July 22, 2015
Very interesting. I never knew much about Mary and William but wish Mary wasn't such a doormat. If this book is correct. William was a horrible little man and all he wanted Mary for is ro become King of Great Britain. she should have denied him the chance and only allow him to be consort or divorce him but I suppose I am using 21st century values.
February 14, 2011
Can you tell my mother brought half the books for down here? That being said it wasn't half bad.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews