I have also read Margaret George's book on Mary Queen of Scots, but I didn't enjoy it as much as her book on Henry 8. But I remember thinking at the time (this was a number years ago) that it probably wasn't Ms. George's fault -- it was Mary's! She did so many foolish things, and made so many bad judgement calls in her life that I actually found it difficult to read the book without squirming. Ms. George brought it all to life so well that as I was reading I was thinking, "Oh, you little idiot" and "No, no, no -- for God's sake don't do THAT."

 

Right now I'm in the middle of Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens by Jane Dunn. I've had my eye on it for a couple of years, but the original hardcover version was beyond my price range. Has anyone else read it? It's a parallel biography, and I'm finding it really, really interesting. I may have to revise my judgement of Mary. Ms. Dunn's take on the two is that Mary wasn't really an idiot -- she just didn't have the training or the life experiences to prepare her for the realities of ruling Scotland, whereas Elizabeth's early experiences had hardened her into a canny, street-wise, independent woman who knew she had to look out for herself.

 

Anybody else have an opinion on this? Was Mary born with less intelligence than Elizabeth?

I have this book also, but have not read it yet.  Now that I see you input I will put on the top of my list.

 

I do believe Mary was more naive than Elizabeth.  Mary just always seemed to rule with her heart not her head.  She did not have the drive to stand up to her male advisors and always seemed to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Tudorgalusa

Mary, although Queen of Scots from within days of her birth, grew up in France where she was trained to be a Queen Consort not a ruler. Therefore when she returned to Scotland it was to a country that had become Protestant whilst she had been away and she was ill-prepared to deal with the new political situation she found herself in.  

I'm right now reading Geroge's book about Mary too.

I almost want to throw it against the wall pertaining to some

of the decisions Mary made.

I agree, it's not quite as good as her one on Henry8, but, like'someone

said, Mary did'nt make all that many good life changes.

I think my next read will be the one about Cleopatra....just for a bit

of a change for now.

 

Mary was in a much more difficult situation than elizabeth.  Elziabeth's succesion was generally welcomed by th epeople of England, and most people were ready to cooperate with her.  Mary returned to a country where there was a great deal of hostility towards her,and she had to fight against great opposition, particularly from the dreadful John Knox, who had immense influence in the country.  Elizabeth never had to come up against anyone like him.  It is impossible to imagine most of the things that happened to Mary happening to Elizabeth.  The murder of Rizzio for instance, itis simply unbleievable to imagine that happening at the english court.  If Elizabeth had had to cope with that degree of hostility, suspicion and opposition she would have had a much tougher time of it.

Yes, I guess it's true that Mary was in a very difficult situation. But I still think Elizabeth was much smarter than Mary, and a much more capable ruler.

 

1) Elizabeth went through a very difficult time when her sister Mary was on the throne -- thrown into the Tower as a traitor, and interrogated by learned men who were probably twice her age and much more experienced. But Elizabeth out-smarted them all, managed to fend off the treason charges, and thwarted Mary's efforts to neutralize her. Could Mary Queen of Scots  have handled herself with such confidence, finesse, and street smarts when she was just a teenager?

 

2) The marriage thing. I believe (this is just idle speculation, of course, but it's so much fun!) that if Elizabeth had been in Mary's shoes, she would never have made the catastrophic mistake of marrying Darnley. Elizabeth would have been smart enough to realize that since she had to rule over feuding, battle-hardened nobles/clan chiefs, she'd better pick someone very, very strong politically, personally, and militarally -- either the strongest of those nobles, or somebody very strong from outside. Elizabeth would never have fallen for a stupid wimp like Darnley, and then been surprised when he was a disaster as a consort.

 

3) Let's do this turn-the-tables thing again. Mary spent most of her life  openly and repeatedly calling Elizabeth a bastard and saying that her ambition was to take Elizabeth's throne away from her. But then, when she messed up things so badly in Scotland that she had to go on the run to save her own skin, she went to England and, apparently, expected Elizabeth to welcome her as a fellow sovereign, and maybe help her raise an army to help her get her kingdom back. What an idiot! Why run to the person who you've been insulting and antagonizing for years and expect her to help you? If the tables had been turned, I believe that Elizabeth would never have let herself fall into the hands of the English -- she would have fled somewhere else and plotted to regain her throne from there.

 

Does anybody else have an opinion on this?

 

 

 

 

It wasn't only that Mary regarded Elizabeth as illegitimate, Mary WAS Elizabeth's rightful heir. And being nine years younger than her Mary naturally expected to be Queen of England one day by right. If she'd kept quiet and shown a little common sense both in advocating fredom of religion and in her private life she might have gained the throne.

I agree with Linda wholeheartedly!

Elizabeth, in my opinion, would not have made such

decisions that Mary did at all.

I think she was too smart.

I can't see her putting herself in a situation with someone like

Darnley either.

Mary made bad decisions that affected her and others around her.

Elizabeth would have handled this much differently.

She had too much of her father's sense for that to happen to her.

Otherwise, she could'nt have ruled as long as she did.

 

 

 

It is impossible to know what Elizabeth would have done in Mary's situation.  But fortunately for her, she didn't have to cope with with the Scots, or with John Knox.

 

Louise

Elizabeth had her own trials to contend with though.

She was thrown into the tower and didnt know for sure if she would survive it.

Her childhood didnt seem all that great either.

I still beleive she would've made better decisions.

She ruled a very long time not to be able to be wise.

I am quite interested about this, if Elizabeth Tudor did marry Duke Charles of Angouleme, would King Henry VIII dare behead Anne Boleyn, since the French would of surely been furious, also Anne Boleyn was Queen Claude of France favourite lady in waiting, why didn't  France revenge Anne Boleyn's death?

Well, Anne Boleyn was executed long before Elizabeth was of an age to marry anybody, she was less than three years old when her mother died.

 

And I doubt that Anne Boleyn was of much importance to the French, they would certainly not have gone to war over her.  If she had been a French princess it might have been different, but it is unlikely they would bestir themselves to do anything for an english lady-in-waiting. 

 

Louise

 

I have read Magret Geoarges books on  Henry VIII and Cleopatra as well. I enjoyed both but my particlar fondess as with evryone of this sire is with the Tudors. I do enjoy Georges writings - you get wrapped up in the story and even though we all know how it turns out you still read on in anticipation! It takes a talent to do that I think. I have yet to read her book on MQS but look forward to doing so

It has been a number of years (more than I care to admit!) since I read Margaret George's Autobiog. of H8 and her book on MQOS. But I do remember vividly that I really enjoyed reading the former, but found the latter frustrating and not as well written. But that was just my first impression -- when I really thought about it, I realized that my problem with the MQOS book was not with George's writing or her presentation of the story, but with Mary herself. I remember that as I was reading, I kept saying to myself (or even right out loud!), "Oh, you idiot -- don't do THAT." So, in the end I concluded that Ms. George had done the best she could with the historical facts that she had.

 

No such problems arise with accounts (fiction or non) of Elizabeth's life!!

 

Linda