Overall, this is a well-written and well-researched biography, although not objective enough about its subject. I appreciated the beautiful writing and the thorough scholarship of this book, although in the end I could not share the author's unqualified admiration for Mary Queen of Scots.

Ms. Fraser presents enough evidence to convince me that Mary probably was not involved beforehand in her second husband Darnley's murder, and that the infamous Casket Letters were probably forgeries or interpolations of other letters. She was certainly not prepared by her French upbringing to deal with the problems she found in Scotland, and was very ill-served by the brutal Scottish lords there, including her own half-brother.

However, Mary apparently did willingly marry her husband's murderer, which cost her the love of her subjects; willingly fled to England even though she knew she was seen as a rival to Queen Elizabeth's throne; and later on became involved in conspiracies in England to overthrow Elizabeth, which virtually forced Elizabeth to have her executed. Even Ms. Fraser cannot explain away these naive and reckless actions, although she tries. Her bias towards her subject is rather obvious. I also shared other readers' frustration with the many untranslated French and Latin phrases, which slows down the reading for those of us not fluent in those languages.

amazing book makes you feel as if you want to be in that world most touching and amazingly well written with no bias and no dodgy facts very good choice of language

Before this book, I'd only just gotten started on my Mary Stuart research, having only read two "semi-biographies"(Mary and Elizabeth by Jane Dunn & Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Darnley) of her. I was hesitant about buying the book because I read the reviews of it on here and it sounded ugly. But I'm very glad I did buy it, because now I am much, much better informed on the subject of Mary than before.

I'm an Antonia Fraser fan, and this book is written in her usual poetic and heart-warming style. She is, I'd have to say, among my favorite historical biographers. She is clearly very passionate about her subject and I was able to sympathize with Mary throughout. Likewise, she is very good about referencing unlike her counterpart Alison Weir.

I'd have to disagree with the reviewers who said this book made Mary out to be saintly. She is portrayed, in my opinion, as sweet and strong, but by no means perfect. There were times in the bio when I thought she was extremely foolish, and often times I was out and out annoyed by her. I agreed with Fraser's conclusion that Mary probably did not try kill her second husband, Henry Darnley and that it was a political set-up. I also agree with her about the Casket Letters. I'm on the fence about Bothwell. I think many of his actions are not at odds with a rapist and abductor. Likewise, I don't see how or why he would proceed to murder Darnley and just hope that Mary would marry him, which could mean prompt execution or life imprisonment. But I didn't mark this against Fraser, because I'm still trying to figure out what I feel on the subject, and also because she convincingly argued her side.


I do take issue with a few slender things in the book. For one, I love Fraser's style, but I did find her constant use of footnotes distracting*. And I definitely agree with the reviewers who said it was biased against Elizabeth. Some of the commentary, such as sharp jabs at Elizabeth's beauty and lifestyle, were entirely editorial and completely uncalled for. Fraser degraded Elizabeth so hard at times that I felt her case for Mary might have been a little too weak. I've read several books on Elizabeth and none so far have made petty, out of place remarks about Mary and rightly so. Both were interesting, incredible women and one need not be knocked down at the expense of the other. This bio would have gotten five stars had there been a little more objectivity.





*Most of them I felt could have been worked conveniently into the narrative.

Antonia Fraser's book, Mary Queen of Scots, is very readable and entertaining. However, the author's "hero-worship" of Mary and low opinion of English Queen Elizabeth I rings out loud and clear. Fraser makes history come alive; just be aware that this is her version of history.

Antonia Fraser's first biography still stands as one of her best. This is a sympathetic look at Mary who at a young age was used as a political pawn, raised not to be "Queen of the Scots" but to be Queen of France. After the Dauphin died, she eventually returned to Scotland as a stranger to the culture and religion of her native land. Though a strong women, she was easily led astray by her passions and her advisors. Her cousin Elizabeth I, offered Mary shelter after she was forced to abdicate her Scottish thrown. Instead of shelter, Elizabeth held her prisoner moving her from place to place to isolate her as much as possible. This is the first great read from Fraser.

I just finished reading this book, I did not want to end. Such a good research, lovingly told. I always felt respect for this woman but now I've discovered through Fraser's narrative the greatness of her character.

I just finished this book and found it to be extremely hard to put down. It is filled with more intrigue, romance, and betrayals than the best novels..and it's all true! What a life she led. Even at her very lowest point she was still heads above the rest of the crowd. She had true dignity. Mary Queen of Scots shall reign over Scotland till the end of time.

I really wish I could give this book 2 1/2 stars. It is beautiful written, and compassionate look at one of history's most enchanting figures. It reads very-much like a novel and the reader is able to empathize with Mary through-out the book. That said, I think it is overly sympathetic. She portrays Mary as a saint, while admitting that she knowingly married her husbands murder and assented toa an attempted assinatation of Elizabeth, who had kept Mary alive at great risk to her [Elizabeth's] own life. Also snide comments are made against Elizabeth through-out the book some of them blatantly untrue (e.g.That her behaviour during the rosbart affair was scandalous, when the record shows it was impeccable.), and glossing over some of the more nasty aspects of Mary Queen of Scotts character. There are other flaws with the book: Lady Fraser has made the silly assumption that I am fluent in French and Latin, the authors own religious bias (She is an English Roman Catholic.) definitely comes through, and she moves into theology at some points in the book, and even political bias comes out when she makes sneering comments at the modern welfare state, which are totally irrevelavant.) A beautiful, if flawed book, by an extremely compassionate and commendable author. I look forward to reading some of her other works.

I could go on about this one forever. So i'll keep it short and simple(simple for all of those readers who gave this book a good review). This author is completely biased, objectivity being alien, which is a very unwelcomed quality in a biographer. Fraser sounds more like Mary's defense attorney than the objective observer she's suppose to be. A "biographer" should know better. I will never buy another "biography" written by this woman. If you want a good read on Mary, try "Immortal Queen" by Elizabeth Byrd. It's actually not a biography, but a novel, and reads a hell of alot more realistic than Fraser's "fantasy".

I could go on about this one forever. So i'll keep it short and simple(simple for all of those people who gave this book a good review). This author is completely biased, objectivity being alien, which is a very unwelcomed quality in a biographer. With all the obvious research that went into this book, Antonia Fraser clearly didn't do her homework. Shame, shame!! A "biographer" should know better. I will never buy another "biography" written by this woman.

I could go on about this one forever. So i'll keep it short and simple(simple for all of those readers who gave this book a good review). This author is completely biased, objectivity being alien, which is a very unwelcomed quality in a biographer. Fraser sounds more like Mary's defense attorney than the objective observer she's suppose to be. A "biographer" should know better. I will never buy another "biography" written by this woman. If you want a good read on Mary, try "Immortal Queen" by Elizabeth Byrd. It's actually not a biography, but a novel, and reads a hell of alot more realistic than Fraser's "fantasy".

Mary Queen of Scots is one of the most enigmatic figures in European history. In this book, Antonia Fraser gives us a detailed history of not only Mary's life, but her emotions and feelings as she's living through the events. And Fraser doesn't seem to be taking sides one way or the other. She doesn't overly praise or overly villify Mary for anything she did or thought.

Mary became Queen of Scotland at only 6 days old. Around the age of 4 she was sent to France to live and be raised by her mother's relatives because their were too many nobles in Scotland that wanted to kill the child queen to elevate themselves to ruler of Scotland. At 17 Mary is married to the teenage king of France and by 19 is a widow. When she finally returns to Scotland to actually rule her people, she is more French then Scottish and the nobles aren't any more glad to see her than they were when she was a child. There is also the large problem of Scotland having converted to Protestantism and Mary being a devout Catholic. Showing her tender heart and gift for diplomacy, even at a very young age, Mary does not try to convert the country back to the Catholic church. She allows them their religion and asks only that she be allowed hers. Her people respond by trying to kill the priest who performs mass for her and destroy any Catholic symbols they can find.

The question of religion is a problem throughout Mary's tumultuous life as she won't give up her beliefs for anyone. This books shows that even if you are the rightful ruler of a country, you have no power without support from the nobles and an army. Mary fights for any kind of control during her entire reign because the Scottish nobles can't stop fighting each other for power. She is never truly in power as she has little support, except from the common people. Mary is used throughout her life by others to get what they want and she makes some disastrous choices, such as her second husband, Lord Darnley, and her decision years later when she has escaped imprisonment by Bothwell, to go to England instead of France. Once in England she is imprisoned illegally for 19 years, and eventually executed for plotting against Queen Elizabeth.

Fraser has written an excellent account of Mary's life, filled with details and insights as to how Mary came to her decisions and what she was thinking and feeling. The writing flows smoothly and keeps you hooked from the first page.

A richly researched book that the history enthusiast will want to read. This book takes much concentration, but I enjoyed contrasting it with Margaret George's fictional account about Mary. Some of the differences are interesting. Whichever you prefer -- this fact-filled work-- or the easier reading fiction, Mary's life was indeed stranger than fiction. She was a fascinating woman, and this book leaves supplies all the detail you'll ever want to know.

A richly researched book that the history enthusiast will want to read. This book takes much concentration, but I enjoyed contrasting it with Margaret George's fictional account about Mary. Some of the differences are interesting. Whichever you prefer -- this fact-filled work-- or the easier reading fiction, Mary's life was indeed stranger than fiction. She was a fascinating woman, and this book leaves supplies all the detail you'll ever want to know.

Lady Antonia Fraser has written the definitive biography of the haunting, lovely Queen Of Scots. This heavyweight volume records in meticulous detail all of Mary's life and career, the joys and tragedies and the pain and romance. Don't pick this book up expecting a light read -- it's over 800 pages long and includes some very serious political and historical analysis. But the romantic anecdotes and telling details are there as well. Mary emerges as a person in these pages -- the romantic girl, the lovesick queen, the lonely prisoner, the courageous martyr.

It's a bittersweet irony of our time that today Mary's gentleness and tolerance have been almost entirely forgotten. Modern "feminists" like Anna Quindlen tend to harp on Mary's cousin Elizabeth as the "real" feminist heroine. Elizabeth is superior to Mary because she was a winner. She was ruthless and manipulative, and therefore successful. Is this feminism?

In actual fact, Elizabeth's ideas and actions were never more worthy or admirable than Mary's. She wasn't a particularly gentle or merciful ruler. Trusting and gentle Mary came to her for help after she lost her throne. And in return Elizabeth betrayed Mary and murdered her on the most flimsy evidence. But she came out on top. And to a bonehead like Anna Quindlen, winning isn't everything. It's the only thing. Far from being liberal feminism, this is middle America at its dumbest -- the Vince Lombardi school of feminism.

Anna Quindlen thinks she's being scrappy and heroic when she writes about how much she admires Elizabeth. But while women should admire "strong" women, it seems a real shame that the truth about Elizabeth's crimes should be buried "in the name of the revolution." Sister murders sister, and Anna Quindlen ignores it for a cheap, feel-good form of hero worship. Anna Quindlen is like a Stalinist who believes the only way to "save" the revolution is to turn a blind eye to purges and bloodshed. For the sake of "sisterhood," gentle Queen Mary disappears from Anna's history, just the way Trotsky and the rest disappeared for so many decades in Russia.

Fortunately, smart people are still around, and they can read about both Mary and Elizabeth and make up their own minds. This biography by Lady Antonia Fraser is not a feminist manifesto -- instead it analyzes both women from a mature political perspective.

The twists and turns of the Scottish Queen's tragic life will leave you amazed. The book is overwhelming, packed with details about things like the Queen's ladies in waiting and the inventory of her beautiful wardrobe. The plot is something you couldn't make up, and can't believe could really have happened. The political turmoil that was standard in those times is amazing, you wonder how the infant Queen ever survived all the plots and conflicting power grabs. Mary is taken from her mother as an infant and raised in France. Mary loves riding about the French countryside with her royal relatives and receives a scholarly education. Then Mary's sickly first husband, who suffered from horrible physical maladies, died shy of his seventeenth birthday. Mary soon takes the throne in Scotland and is initially very popular until the question arises of Mary's possible involvement in the death of her dissolute second husband, Lord Darnley, who was strangled in his nightshirt outside a castle he had just fled owing to its having been blown up! The smoke had hardly cleared from this dubious scenario when the Queen, who later claimed to be acting on the advice of the Scottish Lords or to have been forced against her will by her suitor, or a little of both, got married to husband number three. As the gentleman in question, the Earl of Bothwell, was widely seen as suspect number one in the death of husband number two, the public was outraged, and the sneaky Scottish Lords said they were outraged too. Mary loved to give alms to the poor and had always been warmly received by her countrymen, but now found herself being booed loudly, and all but pelted with epithets and rotten cabbages in the streets of Edinburgh. She soon was forced to flee Scotland with little more than the clothes on her back and a small retinue, into the unwelcoming custody of her cousin Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth and Mary had always talked of meeting but Elizabeth was privately afraid of being swayed too much by Mary's legendary personal charm into making too many concessions of the sort that would tend to give her less advantage and Mary more in the complex political duet between Enlgand and Scotland. This sudden and too-close-for-comfort appearance of an all-too-legitimate rival to the throne of England, essentially forced Elizabeth's hand, she had little choice but to lock Mary up, a situation that continued for around 19 years. Free-spirited Mary, who must have gone out of her mind with boredom in captivity, attempts to free herself by hatching far-fetched plots, communicating with dimwitted supporters using easily confiscated letters,and keeping codebooks in her rooms. Finally Elizabeth, who has put up with this for years, becomes truly frightened for her own life and is forced to have her cousin executed. Mary meets the end with grace, dignity, spiritual fortitude and not a little stage management calculated to give her an edge on her cousin in the history books. But there is much much more. What's fascinating is that even today no one can really say for sure how much to blame Mary herself was for these outrageous turns that her life took. This book by Frazer tends to portray Mary as a hapless victim, while other biographies such as the recent Elizabeth and Mary by Jane Dunn, offer a more realistic view that also takes into account Queen Elizabeth's side of the story. Still, though I confess to having yet to read either biography all the way through, I have more fondness for Fraser's book precisely because she herself seems to have written it while under the spell of the Scottish Queen. Where is the fun in taking a sober, balanced view of such incredible events? For me it's Mary over Elizabeth every time. Elizabeth is the boring, dependable minvan monarch. I mean, she never had a real boyfriend, how exciting is that? Mary is the romantic, impractical, Italian roadster that you drive recklessly -when it's not in the shop being fixed again and waiting for outrageously hard to get and afford parts. Elizabeth prevailed in reality and continues to grab the headlines. But Mary was the one you would have wanted to have a conversation with, and I would love it if more movies came out that focused more on Mary, as I think we have enough Queen Elizabeth movies already! If I were going to pitch this to someone as a movie, the focus would be on what was it that made Mary so sort of misguided but also so spiritual, at some point did she deliberately decide to become a martyr for the Catholic cause? And I would focus on the idea that she was in a lot of ways a victim of circumstances, because I really don't think she had a hand in her second husband's death. She really was manipulated by the Scottish Lords, and she also was really the rightful heir to the English Throne. And the fact that after being beheaded her body was walled up in the castle for years and the castle was totally closed down after that - like an enchanted sleeping beauty castle. And how sad it is to imagine her being imprisoned for 19 years. And she really had very little power to change her fate, which is very tragic and makes for great drama.

The twists and turns of the Scottish Queen's tragic life will leave you amazed. The book is overwhelming, packed with details about things like the Queen's ladies in waiting and the inventory of her beautiful wardrobe. The plot is something you couldn't make up, and can't believe could really have happened. The political turmoil that was standard in those times is amazing, you wonder how the infant Queen ever survived all the plots and conflicting power grabs. Mary is taken from her mother as an infant and raised in France. Mary loves riding about the French countryside with her royal relatives and receives a scholarly education. Then Mary's sickly first husband, who suffered from horrible physical maladies, died shy of his seventeenth birthday. Mary soon takes the throne in Scotland and is initially very popular until the question arises of Mary's possible involvement in the death of her dissolute second husband, Lord Darnley, who was strangled in his nightshirt outside a castle he had just fled owing to its having been blown up! The smoke had hardly cleared from this dubious scenario when the Queen, who later claimed to be acting on the advice of the Scottish Lords or to have been forced against her will by her suitor, or a little of both, got married to husband number three. As the gentleman in question, the Earl of Bothwell, was widely seen as suspect number one in the death of husband number two, the public was outraged, and the sneaky Scottish Lords said they were outraged too. Mary loved to give alms to the poor and had always been warmly received by her countrymen, but now found herself being booed loudly, and all but pelted with epithets and rotten cabbages in the streets of Edinburgh. She soon was forced to flee Scotland with little more than the clothes on her back and a small retinue, into the unwelcoming custody of her cousin Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth and Mary had always talked of meeting but Elizabeth was privately afraid of being swayed too much by Mary's legendary personal charm into making too many concessions of the sort that would tend to give her less advantage and Mary more in the complex political duet between Enlgand and Scotland. This sudden and too-close-for-comfort appearance of an all-too-legitimate rival to the throne of England, essentially forced Elizabeth's hand, she had little choice but to lock Mary up, a situation that continued for around 19 years. Free-spirited Mary, who must have gone out of her mind with boredom in captivity, attempts to free herself by hatching far-fetched plots, communicating with dimwitted supporters using easily confiscated letters,and keeping codebooks in her rooms. Finally Elizabeth, who has put up with this for years, becomes truly frightened for her own life and is forced to have her cousin executed. Mary meets the end with grace, dignity, spiritual fortitude and not a little stage management calculated to give her an edge on her cousin in the history books. But there is much much more. What's fascinating is that even today no one can really say for sure how much to blame Mary herself was for these outrageous turns that her life took. This book by Frazer tends to portray Mary as a hapless victim, while other biographies such as the recent Elizabeth and Mary by Jane Dunn, offer a more realistic view that also takes into account Queen Elizabeth's side of the story.This has got to be made into a movie. No, several movies: the glamour version with Angelina Jolie, then the documentary version, then the costume drama version. Hollywood, get busy! I need to see this complex sovereign brought to life.

After having read many biographies on Elizabeth I, I decided I should now take a look at the view point of her rival, Mary. Indeed, it was eye opening.

Frasier does an excellent job at making sure that no details are left out. She takes the time to look at each side of the coin, dismissing blatant rumors and indicating was is fact and what is mere speculation. She also leaves no thread loose, making sure to add a footnote to even minor characters of interest so that the reader may know of what happened to them. Indeed, her research is thorough, and lacks a lot of the nagging questions about people and events I find that I have when I read biographies written by other writers.

Yet despite all of the heavy reading, the narrative does not lag, but is fresh and interesting.

My only complaint was the untranslated French phrases. Even with the assistance of several French-to-English dictionaries, I often had a hard time finding specific words or phrases. Yet this was a minor annoyance, and did not interefere with the quality of the work as a whole.

For those looking for a detailed and thrilling biography, I highly recommend this book.

It probably is unfair to compare the writing styles of Fraser and her counterpart, Alison Weir, but having just read what seems like a mountain of books by both of them, I can't help but do so and find Fraser ahead on some points, behind on others.

Fraser has a methodical style wherein each sentence is so cram-packed with detail that her books probably improve on their second or third readings. She takes a comprehensive, relatively non-biased look at her subject here and provides an interesting biography of a woman who has been characterized as everything from a near saint to a scheming, treasonous viper who deserved her eventual beheading. While Weir seems to take the position that Elizabeth I was some beloved angel who eventually had to sully her hands and cut off the head of her cousin for national security, I think the truth is somewhere else, as does Fraser.

In terms of historical accuracy, I think Fraser probably has the edge over Weir, notwithstanding both authors' impeccable research. Weir allows story to take precedence over fact, something that doesn't seem to happen as much with Fraser.

Which brings me to my list of quibbles with this book. Fraser may write factually, but in doing so, she comes thisclose to having written a book every bit as dry as the ones I steered clear of in school. It was torture to get through some of the passages and I put the book down more than once, not to pick it up again for days. I wasn't compelled to finish the book and find out the rest of the story the way I was with Weir's.

My second issue was with all of the passages in untranslated languages, French primarily. A few years ago, I'd say I spoke French fluently, but even I had to look up some of the phrases here. It wouldn't have hurt the narrative to provide a parenthetical translation for those of us not fluent in multiple languages who don't feel like getting up to run the thing through Babelfish. Intended or not, it gave the author an air of arrogance and was my main stumbling block to enjoying this book as fully as I wanted to.

Overall, it was a detailed biography, probably as accurate as anything else that's out there, without the apparent author bias that's seen in Weir's book. This is not easy reading though; the story is unevenly written, overly laden with minutiae where it's not necessary and filled with passages and important comments that a lot of people won't even be able to decipher without help. I'd give it 4 stars for credibility, 2 for accessibility, for a final 3 stars overall.

How you will like this book much depends on what you expect of a biography. Personally, I prefer it to be an account, as objective as possible, of a life, revealing both the subject's strengths and flaws in relation to his or her wider cultural and historical context. This is what you will not find here. Fraser basically styles herself as the defence lawyer that Mary lacked during her Fotheringay trial - the book is one extended apologia for the Queen of Scots, of whom, as a result, a picture emerges that is simply too good to be true. It is also a picture that is inherently inconsistent: on the one hand we are to believe that Mary was a truly regal woman, proud, aware of her position, full of wisdom and insight beyond her age and blessed with a tolerance even beyond her time - and yet she is also constantly depicted as a hapless victim tossed about by forces over which she had no control. Human beings have many characteristics, but blameless perfection is rarely one of them, and the total lack of shades of gray in this black-and-white tale does not help its believability. Fraser finds an explanation and excuse for every of Mary's actions that might be considered foolish or of evil intent. However, Queen Elizabeth and her government, who obviously represent the 'black', need not count on such clemency. Personally I am amazed that one can write a book about Mary Stuart without dedicating at least a full chapter to her English cousin. With Fraser, Elizabeth remains a cipher, an ominous and ill-willed force in the background. Walsingham gets to see a bit more of the limelight, but only to put him on show as an almost devilish plotter, a liar and a forger. The problem is that on one level, that of everyday human interaction, some or even much of that may be true - but the picture changes drastically when viewed on the world stage of competing kingdoms. There can be no doubt that Elizabeth's actions were intended to benefit what she believed was the good of England, not that of herself. Nor can there be any doubt that from the English perspective Mary posed a serious threat to the throne, and thus to stability, especially given her Catholic faith. Mary on her part was naýve, to say the least, in believing that in England she would find assistance from a queen whom she had in fact never met, with whom she had only communicated through non-committal letters, and to whom she plainly was a rival - especially given her adamant refusal to give up her claims to the English throne. Add to that her peculiar talent to make herself unpopular with her own people, and the story acquires the kind of deeper profile one would have liked to see in this book.
No doubt some, maybe even many of the points Fraser makes are true; yet, many are also based on mere speculation or on sources that cannot but be prejudiced. Towards the end, much of her criticism of the council that tried Mary is no more than an extended paraphrase of Mary's own words on the subject. I was also struck by Fraser's apparent belief in prophecies by astrologists and the like, again something that does not help believability and furthers the impression that the author is too enmeshed in her subject and her mission to be able write a balanced book about it. Worse, by her refusal to truly probe Mary's character and her determination to canonize her, Fraser also ends up telling a story that is too superficial to support itself and claim attention for nearly 700 pages.

I read this book because I have Scot ancestry and wanted to know more about the rise of Protestantism in Scotland. I had two false prejudices from popular culture when I started the book: I thought Mary was a religious zealot (against the "rational" Queen Elizabeth) and that Antonia Fraser was a romance-type novelist. This book is a page turner of excellent quality. Fraser's vocabulary alone is a treasure.

Most of us are familiar with the later story of Mary Queen of Scots and her tragic demise at the hands of Queen Elizabeth. This studiously written book fills in the early details of Mary's life and so forth. Reading like a text book this account is often ponderous but read in small increments it is palatable and worthwhile, especially for those history buffs or students who need minute details of the life of Mary. Often times the reader gets the feeling much of the old accounts are surmised and subject to interpretation. In this case all the facts are carefully documented with footnotes and references used to obtain them. There have been many more interesting accounts of Mary written but how accurate and truthful is a valid question. The precise documentation of this book leaves little doubt as to its validity in this interesting chapter of history.

Mary Stuart, only child of James V of Scotland and Mary of Guise, is a gift to biographers through the ages, not least because her life cleaves so easily into three stages: (1) her brilliant debut in the court of the Valois and her marriage to King Francis II; (2) her journey from Paris to Scotland, where she ruled through a series of misadventures; and (3) her flight to England, where she was captured by her cousin, Queen Elizabeth, and eventually executed as a traitor at Fotheringay. Lady Antonia Fraser made her (now enormous) name in 1969 with this work - and the liveliness of her prose is often credited with a wider revival in narrative biography. What is now lost sight of is that Fraser's biography was, in many respects, revisionist in nature: not least because Fraser, herself a Catholic, was uniquely qualified to present Mary's credentials as Roman martyr, while at the same time unflinching cataloging her many personal failures. Another departure from the heroic tradition is her condemnation of 16th century Scottish nobility for the murderous rabble it truly was - especially the loathsome Bothwell. Finally, as Fraser explains at length, the trumped-up conviction and cruelly botched execution of Mary was nothing short of judicial murder. By the way, the early 1970s film starring Vanessa Redgrave, while excellent as a work of romantic history, is unconnected, and bears little resemblance to the grim contemporary environment as depicted by Fraser.

I have always been interested in English history especially around the Tudor era. I especially like Elizabeth I so I decided to read about one of her contemporaries. I have always been fascinated by the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth but this book seems to put it seriously one sided. As a great admirer of Elizabeth I am willing to admit that she had her flaws but also must admit that she was one of the most amazing women of all time. She held her country together when it seemed as though it were ready to fall apart. Her cousin Mary was in stark contrast. This book makes Mary to be the victim in every circumstance. Every time you turn around big bad Elizabeth is making life miserable for her. Must we forget that Mary was the cause of most of her own problems. She made numerous errors in her judgement with men. Her marrying exploits caused many of her own people to turn against her even murdering her own husband. Then she marries the man who seems most guilty of the deed. All of these decision led to her countrymen taking her crown and giving it to her young son. This is where the book finds the "horrible" Elizabeth imprisoning her outcast cousin. Lest we forget in these turbulent times called the sixteenth century that many of the nobility used the monarchy for their own profit. Mary posed a serious threat to the throne of England. All of Elizabeth's enemies would be poised and ready to take her away and put Mary in her place. Mary was given most luxuries that you and I don't see today. Clothes, servants, horse-back riding in the countryside. It was not as if she was kept locked in a tower the entire time of her imprisonment. Elizabeth had to protect the throne and her subjects. Under Elizabeth's watch she was safe from the people who were out for revenge for her horrible judgement. But Mary had plans of her own. She plotted treason against her cousin and had many people who were willing to help. In the end Mary lost out and was beheaded. It took Elizabeth over a 10 years and 5 plots by Mary to usurp the throne before she would sign the death warrant against Mary. Even after the deed was done Elizabeth threw herself into a rage and was angry that her servants had actually gone through with the course of action. This book represents Mary as a poor unknowing pawn in the game of royalty and the shuffling of crowns. But this is truly a forgiving portrait of Mary Queen of Scots. She was raised to be a queen and she knew from the time that she was learning lessons at her teachers knees the power of what a crown held. She was not beneath taking it from another when her own stupidity caused her to lose her own.