What do you think?
Rate this book
Margherita di Valois
French
- GenresNonfictionHistoryFrance
479 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
4 people are currently reading
46 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 2, 2022
Le livre est écrit par une érudite de la vie de la Reine Margot. Je l’ai trouvé passionnant et plein de détails sur la vie de cette grande reine de la Renaissance qui diffère tant des histoires romancées d’Alexandre Dumas et autres.
February 1, 2026
2.5 stars
This was relatively good, but rather one-sided in its interpretations and not always credible. There was palpable sympathy for the main character and her Valois family. Marguerite herself was idealised and some of her obvious mistakes and blunders were glossed over.
She may have been intelligent and refined (although some authors exaggerate this grotesquely), but the fact is that Marguerite committed treason against both her brother, Henri III of France, and her husband, Henri III of Navarre (the future Henri IV of France). And I’m not defending her brother or her husband here, just stating the facts.
She asked for help from Philip II of Spain, who was an enemy of the French state. She was ready to spy on Philip’s behalf because she felt hurt by her family.
Eventually, Marguerite was lucky to survive after all she had done. We know that treason could be punished by death in the 16th century.
The author also seems to forget at times how patriarchal the world in which Marguerite lived was. This also makes some of her statements problematic.
Nothing proves that Marguerite was an able politician in her own right, as Viennot suggests. On the contrary, some of her actions point to the lack of political thinking. Many of her independently taken decisions were big failures.
But a big plus of this book is that the author shows how our view of this queen has been distorted by pamphlets, satire and literature, and how often we accept rumour as fact. Marguerite most likely was not the dissolute and frivolous queen of the pamphlets.
And just saying, the mention of the young duc de Guise’s blue eyes as something making him attractive looks a bit ridiculous. By the way, Henri de Navarre also had blue eyes.
On a side note, Viennot’s partiality (as well as her antipathy toward Henri of Navarre) was fully revealed in her “article” about Gabrielle d’Estrees, in which she chose to repeat slanderous gossip about this woman drawn from some mysoginistic writings and anecdotal books about Henri.
This was relatively good, but rather one-sided in its interpretations and not always credible. There was palpable sympathy for the main character and her Valois family. Marguerite herself was idealised and some of her obvious mistakes and blunders were glossed over.
She may have been intelligent and refined (although some authors exaggerate this grotesquely), but the fact is that Marguerite committed treason against both her brother, Henri III of France, and her husband, Henri III of Navarre (the future Henri IV of France). And I’m not defending her brother or her husband here, just stating the facts.
She asked for help from Philip II of Spain, who was an enemy of the French state. She was ready to spy on Philip’s behalf because she felt hurt by her family.
Eventually, Marguerite was lucky to survive after all she had done. We know that treason could be punished by death in the 16th century.
The author also seems to forget at times how patriarchal the world in which Marguerite lived was. This also makes some of her statements problematic.
Nothing proves that Marguerite was an able politician in her own right, as Viennot suggests. On the contrary, some of her actions point to the lack of political thinking. Many of her independently taken decisions were big failures.
But a big plus of this book is that the author shows how our view of this queen has been distorted by pamphlets, satire and literature, and how often we accept rumour as fact. Marguerite most likely was not the dissolute and frivolous queen of the pamphlets.
And just saying, the mention of the young duc de Guise’s blue eyes as something making him attractive looks a bit ridiculous. By the way, Henri de Navarre also had blue eyes.
On a side note, Viennot’s partiality (as well as her antipathy toward Henri of Navarre) was fully revealed in her “article” about Gabrielle d’Estrees, in which she chose to repeat slanderous gossip about this woman drawn from some mysoginistic writings and anecdotal books about Henri.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews