Buy Used
CDN$ 0.77
+ CDN$ 6.49 shipping
Used: Good | Details
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: Moderate wear on cover and edges. Minimal highlighting and/or other markings can be present. May be ex-library copy and may not include CD, Accessories and/or Dust Cover. Good readable copy.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Mary, Queen of Scots: Pride, Passion and a Kingdom Lost Paperback – May 4 2001


See all 3 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Paperback
"Please retry"
CDN$ 43.12 CDN$ 0.77

Summer Clearance on Books Books That Make You Think





Product Details


Product Description

About the Author

Jenny Wormald is a university lecturer in History and C.E. Hodge Fellow at the University of Oxford.

Inside This Book

(Learn More)
First Sentence
Mary Queen of Scots was born in the palace of Linlithgow on 7 or 8 December 1542. Read the first page
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.ca
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 3 reviews
19 of 23 people found the following review helpful
No melodrama - at last! Dec 16 2005
By S.Lynne - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
This, at last, is a book that focuses on what MQS actually DID as a queen, and what she didn't do. It measures her against the same stick used to measure other rulers of the same age instead of the usual sturm un drang offered up. She was no marytred saint, yet she was no she demon in velvet skirts. She was charming and lovely, however she was also inadequate. Kind of Queen-Lite, if you will.

I found it very interesting that her much toted tolerance concerning religion is revealed to be otherwise. She demands the right to practice her own religion, but denies that same right to other Catholics. It is hard to hold up the banner of Catholic martyr when she did nothing good for that cause in Scotland, empowering the Protestant at the expense of the Catholic.

And yes, I'm glad that Wormald came down on the side of Mary being involved in the plot against Darnley. Leave MQS some shreds of intelligence. If she didn't know, that makes her and Darnley the only ones in Scotland and Europe who were unaware of the plot. Her actions definitely speak loudly when she lured Darnely out of his family stronghold and brought him back to Edinburgh and death. It was politically astute and necessary. Only her blunders afterward destroyed her reputation. Handled differently, she could very likely have weathered it.

Good read, well written and neither rabid nor fawning.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
A Misplaced Life Feb. 8 2008
By LINDA A. ROOT - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
This is a valuable book that focuses on Mary Stuart as a ruler rather than Mary Stuart as a heroine in a historical romance. It is not a mystery about who killed Lord Darnley. It is a critical analysis of what occurred when someone who was historically ordained to rule, but who possessed none of the qualities to make that rule successful in the dynamic of the sixteenth century, attempted to lead Scotland through the religious and political minefiled of its pre-modern politics. Some writers tend to think that Wormald is too tough on the historical Mary Queen of Scots, but there is good basis for her analysis. The essential question about the Scots Queen in not really whether or not she wrote all or some of the Casket Letters, and whether or not she was a player in the murder of her husband Lord Darnley, but whether she faired any better than most of the other Stuart kings who followed her in dealing with the great issues of her day. She clearly did not. While my own review of the letters insofar as they presently exist, the evidence from a variety of sources, and my own experience as a successful prosecutor leads me to believe that I probably could convict her of conspiracy to commit murder , but not as an aider and abettor of murder itself, if she had been less a French queen and more a Scot, had she seen her role more as an obligation to her own historical niche and less a license to behave as if she were answerable to no mortal, her monarchy might have ended quite differently. No one would have cared about Darnley. Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, and even Thomas More did not put an end to Henry VIII, Essex did not end Elizabeth I, and the disposal of an unpopular sometimes Papist consort, would not have ended Mary's rule. Her prolonged absence from Scotland during her childhood, her identity with powers that were not in step with the religious and political changes in Scotland, her reliance upon her half-brother and other men to lead her country and usurp her power to make decisions are among teh flaws that are exposed and highlighted in this short but important book.
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Wormald is biased and it was apparent right at the beginning when she stated Queen Elizabeth I was the greatest monarch that eve April 15 2015
By Linda G. Richards - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
The book was full of nonsense! Wormald is biased and it was apparent right at the beginning when she stated Queen Elizabeth I was the greatest monarch that ever lived without any facts to back it up. Even the write-up for the book about Queen Mary is full of inaccuracies. For example, stating Mary was “churlish” . . . most state she was very polite and that being raised in French court, she was taught to have exquisite manners and was very polite to everyone. Even when she gave to the poor, she did so with a caring heart. It also states she was “petulant” or grouchy. If that were true, she would not have nursed her husband Darnley back to health before his death. In other words, she was kind and caring to people even though they had mistreated her. Darnley was in on Rizzio’s murder, yet Mary, the forgiving person she was, was nursing him back to health just before his death. And she was the last person to be disloyal. It was her half-brother, James Stewart and her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I that was disloyal. Moray usurped her throne and was under the pay of Queen Elizabeth I. And Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I were never childhood friends and playmates. They never even met each other. Where does Wormald get this fabricated information from? This is the worst piece of literature I have ever read!


Feedback