What do you think?
Rate this book
Mary, Queen of Scots
Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, has long been portrayed as one of history's romantically tragic figures. Devious, naive, beautiful and sexually voracious, often highly principled, she secured the Scottish throne and bolstered the position of the Catholic Church in Scotland. Her plotting, including probable involvement in the murder of her husband Lord Darnley, led to her flight from Scotland and imprisonment by her equally ambitious cousin and fellow queen, Elizabeth of England. Yet when Elizabeth ordered Mary's execution in 1587 it was an act of exasperated frustration rather than political wrath.
Unlike biographies of Mary predating this work, this masterly study set out to show Mary as she really was - not a romantic heroine, but the ruler of a European kingdom with far greater economic and political importance than its size or location would indicate. Wormald also showed that Mary's downfall was not simply because of the 'crisis years' of 1565-7, but because of her way of dealing, or failing to deal, with the problems facing her as a renaissance monarch. She was tragic because she was born to supreme power but was wholly incapable of coping with its responsibilities. Her extraordinary story has become one of the most colourful and emotionally searing tales of western history, and it is here fully reconsidered by a leading specialist of the period. Jenny Wormald's beautifully written biography will appeal to students and general readers alike.
Unlike biographies of Mary predating this work, this masterly study set out to show Mary as she really was - not a romantic heroine, but the ruler of a European kingdom with far greater economic and political importance than its size or location would indicate. Wormald also showed that Mary's downfall was not simply because of the 'crisis years' of 1565-7, but because of her way of dealing, or failing to deal, with the problems facing her as a renaissance monarch. She was tragic because she was born to supreme power but was wholly incapable of coping with its responsibilities. Her extraordinary story has become one of the most colourful and emotionally searing tales of western history, and it is here fully reconsidered by a leading specialist of the period. Jenny Wormald's beautifully written biography will appeal to students and general readers alike.
288 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
41 people are currently reading
480 people want to read
About the author
Jenny Wormald
14 books7 followersJenny Wormald was Honorary Fellow in Scottish History at the University of Edinburgh.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
September 29, 2024
Before moving onto my review I’ll just highlight that the GR description is misleading. Jenny Wormald was the author of this book. In this edition Anna Groundwater adds an extensive afterword, from the perspective of 30 years later. [Issue subsequently fixed by a GR librarian - see comment 7 below].
Mary Stewart’s tempestuous life seems to have exercised a strange fascination down the centuries. Judging from the “What to Read Next” feature on my Kindle, she has been the subject not just of numerous historical biographies but of a near-infinite number of historical novels. Dr Wormald uses the word “Mariolatry” to describe it, I think only half in jest. She also comments in this book that Lady Antonia Fraser’s biography is the definitive work on Mary’s life, and that her book therefore takes a narrower focus, concentrating on Mary as a ruler.
Any objective assessment of Mary as Queen has to conclude her reign was a disastrous failure. She was deposed by her own subjects after just 6 years and fled to England as a refugee, where she conspired to overthrow Elizabeth I and was executed. The question considered in this book is whether this failure was down to circumstances beyond Mary’s control, or whether it can be attributed to Mary’s own failings, and Dr Wormald argues firmly for the latter.
Many modern biographers of Mary highlight the difficulties faced by a female ruler in what was an intensely patriarchal society, but Dr Wormald points out that the 16th century saw a number of female rulers in Europe, most of whom were successful. Not least amongst these was Mary’s cousin Elizabeth I, but the Queen of Scots’ own mother, the formidable Marie de Guise, might be classed as another, since she was Regent of Scotland from 1554 to her death in 1560. Anna Groundwater’s afterword offers something of an alternative view, noting that the moral code of the era made female rulers vulnerable to allegations of sexual impropriety, something that was certainly used against Mary.
A big part of the author’s argument is that Mary’s failures derived from her upbringing. She was brought up in France from the age of five and was briefly Queen Consort of that country. Dr Wormald suggests that she much preferred this role to that of Queen Regnant of the small and poverty-stricken country of her birth. Had her husband Francis II not died, she might never have returned to Scotland. As it was, the author argues that Mary’s lack of familiarity with the country’s political culture was a severe disadvantage. Compared to France or England, 16th century Scotland was a kinship-based society with a weak central government, and she argues that Mary was unable to adjust to this culture. Reading the book, I was reminded of the The Godfather, with the various earls and dukes constantly plotting and conspiring to eliminate their rivals.
Probably the biggest single issue that Mary faced was the Scottish Reformation. When Mary left in 1548, Scotland was a predominantly Catholic country. By the time she returned in 1561, it was predominantly Calvinist. Indeed Dr Wormald argues that it was during the 14-month gap between the death of Marie de Guise and the Queen’s reluctant return that the Protestant lords really gained control of the country. Anna Groundwater adds that the fact the Scottish Reformation was achieved against the will of the monarch overtly challenged the authority of the monarchy itself.
Dr Wormald’s book is provocative in its criticism of Mary, deliberately so I think, but it’s also a very lively read. It would be worth reading in combination with a more sympathetic portrayal, to get both viewpoints.
For those unfamiliar with British history, the final irony in the story arrived when Mary’s son, James VI of Scotland, became the first King of Great Britain when he succeeded the childless Elizabeth I of England. For all her failures, it was a sort of triumph for Mary in the end, albeit a posthumous one.
Mary Stewart’s tempestuous life seems to have exercised a strange fascination down the centuries. Judging from the “What to Read Next” feature on my Kindle, she has been the subject not just of numerous historical biographies but of a near-infinite number of historical novels. Dr Wormald uses the word “Mariolatry” to describe it, I think only half in jest. She also comments in this book that Lady Antonia Fraser’s biography is the definitive work on Mary’s life, and that her book therefore takes a narrower focus, concentrating on Mary as a ruler.
Any objective assessment of Mary as Queen has to conclude her reign was a disastrous failure. She was deposed by her own subjects after just 6 years and fled to England as a refugee, where she conspired to overthrow Elizabeth I and was executed. The question considered in this book is whether this failure was down to circumstances beyond Mary’s control, or whether it can be attributed to Mary’s own failings, and Dr Wormald argues firmly for the latter.
Many modern biographers of Mary highlight the difficulties faced by a female ruler in what was an intensely patriarchal society, but Dr Wormald points out that the 16th century saw a number of female rulers in Europe, most of whom were successful. Not least amongst these was Mary’s cousin Elizabeth I, but the Queen of Scots’ own mother, the formidable Marie de Guise, might be classed as another, since she was Regent of Scotland from 1554 to her death in 1560. Anna Groundwater’s afterword offers something of an alternative view, noting that the moral code of the era made female rulers vulnerable to allegations of sexual impropriety, something that was certainly used against Mary.
A big part of the author’s argument is that Mary’s failures derived from her upbringing. She was brought up in France from the age of five and was briefly Queen Consort of that country. Dr Wormald suggests that she much preferred this role to that of Queen Regnant of the small and poverty-stricken country of her birth. Had her husband Francis II not died, she might never have returned to Scotland. As it was, the author argues that Mary’s lack of familiarity with the country’s political culture was a severe disadvantage. Compared to France or England, 16th century Scotland was a kinship-based society with a weak central government, and she argues that Mary was unable to adjust to this culture. Reading the book, I was reminded of the The Godfather, with the various earls and dukes constantly plotting and conspiring to eliminate their rivals.
Probably the biggest single issue that Mary faced was the Scottish Reformation. When Mary left in 1548, Scotland was a predominantly Catholic country. By the time she returned in 1561, it was predominantly Calvinist. Indeed Dr Wormald argues that it was during the 14-month gap between the death of Marie de Guise and the Queen’s reluctant return that the Protestant lords really gained control of the country. Anna Groundwater adds that the fact the Scottish Reformation was achieved against the will of the monarch overtly challenged the authority of the monarchy itself.
Dr Wormald’s book is provocative in its criticism of Mary, deliberately so I think, but it’s also a very lively read. It would be worth reading in combination with a more sympathetic portrayal, to get both viewpoints.
For those unfamiliar with British history, the final irony in the story arrived when Mary’s son, James VI of Scotland, became the first King of Great Britain when he succeeded the childless Elizabeth I of England. For all her failures, it was a sort of triumph for Mary in the end, albeit a posthumous one.
Read
January 3, 2019A great book, lively and fun . The title pretty much is the book. Wormald's essential argument is that most of the opinion and writing about Queen Mary up to her own book is all just so much Romantic tosh, Mary's reign was a failure and she ended up with her head on the block not because she was a woman, a Catholic, or charming, but because she was a political incompetent, not a tragic figure, simply sad.
It is hard to argue with Wormald's view, particularly if as in my case, you know virtually nothing about Scottish history (a quite normal outcome of a British education), Wormald says that this is part of the problem of the historiography - as Mary has often been written about from the perspective of Tudor England, by people who don't understand or know much Scots history, Wormald observes that the basic political situation that Mary faced - coming to power after a long minority, with no succession from adult ruler to their adult child, limited finances, long years spent abroad, needing to work with factions of nobles with complex networks of kin and supporters was fairly normal for Stewart rulers, par for the course as they would in time say once they became keen golfers, the abnormal features of her reign were the advantages of a fat French pension and strong links to her mother's family the (over)mighty French Guises, that she was a woman (advantages and disadvantages to this politically), and the ongoing Reformation in Scotland and Europe as a whole.
"The poor fool will never cease [from plotting] until she lose her head" her ex-brother-in law King Charles IX of France said of Mary in 1572, Wormald stresses that while her cousin Elizabeth I appeared to be deeply troubled over Mary's captivity and resisted (or appeared to resist) calls for her execution, Mary herself jumped on any semi-buttocked scheme to assassinate Elizabeth that popped up. Wormald felt that one reason for Mary's political failure in Scotland was that she simply wasn't bothered about it, for her the prize was becoming Queen of anywhere else, France ideally, but England was an acceptable substitute, and so she tolerated the domination of her own royal council by Protestant, pro-England nobles, and didn't support Catholicism in Scotland outside of her own household with a view to launching on to the English political stage. Here Wormald blames her French Royal education, an interesting point I felt, as as far as I recall the other persons to receive such an education turned out also to be political lightweights: Charles IX, Henri III, I guess Francis Duke of Anjou too, who so spectacularly in a very Marian move, over played his hand in the Netherlands. By implication these youngsters grew up believed their own royal propaganda and assuming the assertions of royal power in political theatre ( such as processions, grand entries in to cities, and hunting) were statements of fact rather than attempts to impress. Slyly Wormald hints at a similarity between Mary and her grandson Charles I - well who said that a historian can't have fun. There is something apt in the hint, Charles wasn't stupid, but rather like Grandma Mary both had a curious political naivety. Machiavelli in The Prince discussed wisdom and intelligence, some rulers he says, are clever and able, others are clever and able enough to recognise their own limitations and to chose wise and capable persons to advise them - while some don't even have the ability to do that.
The recent editions of this book are bookended by an introduction and concluding essay by Anne Groundwater, one of the curiosities of a book which dismisses Mary as a ruler on the grounds of her political inactivity is that there isn’t a particularly close reading of Mary’s administration, one of the results of Wormald’s book was to prompt further study and areas for further research which Groundwater discusses. It is hard not to think that one of the reasons for Mary's popularity as a Romantic figure is because her story dovetails into the rise of 'the angel in the House' view of women, because she was politically inept and hopeless, prone to outbreaks of hysterics when things didn't go her away, she could be taken as a safe emblematic figure for all women demonstrating that their proper place was purely domestic, as they were incapable constitutionally of wielding power, something which one couldn't conclude from the careers of contemporaries of Mary's such as Catherine de Medici or Margaret of Parma.
What above all emerges despite Wormald's focus on administration is the colour and drama of Scottish history - Mary's third (?) husband dying insane in a Norwegian dungeon, her executioner botching his job - left displaying her wig to the crowd, John Knox annoying almost everybody, Mary managing to get her final army defeated by a far inferior force, scheming incompetent ambassadors, insular inward looking English politics contrasted with an expansive European Scottish political life (human nature as Thucydides said doesn't much change).
It is hard to argue with Wormald's view, particularly if as in my case, you know virtually nothing about Scottish history (a quite normal outcome of a British education), Wormald says that this is part of the problem of the historiography - as Mary has often been written about from the perspective of Tudor England, by people who don't understand or know much Scots history, Wormald observes that the basic political situation that Mary faced - coming to power after a long minority, with no succession from adult ruler to their adult child, limited finances, long years spent abroad, needing to work with factions of nobles with complex networks of kin and supporters was fairly normal for Stewart rulers, par for the course as they would in time say once they became keen golfers, the abnormal features of her reign were the advantages of a fat French pension and strong links to her mother's family the (over)mighty French Guises, that she was a woman (advantages and disadvantages to this politically), and the ongoing Reformation in Scotland and Europe as a whole.
"The poor fool will never cease [from plotting] until she lose her head" her ex-brother-in law King Charles IX of France said of Mary in 1572, Wormald stresses that while her cousin Elizabeth I appeared to be deeply troubled over Mary's captivity and resisted (or appeared to resist) calls for her execution, Mary herself jumped on any semi-buttocked scheme to assassinate Elizabeth that popped up. Wormald felt that one reason for Mary's political failure in Scotland was that she simply wasn't bothered about it, for her the prize was becoming Queen of anywhere else, France ideally, but England was an acceptable substitute, and so she tolerated the domination of her own royal council by Protestant, pro-England nobles, and didn't support Catholicism in Scotland outside of her own household with a view to launching on to the English political stage. Here Wormald blames her French Royal education, an interesting point I felt, as as far as I recall the other persons to receive such an education turned out also to be political lightweights: Charles IX, Henri III, I guess Francis Duke of Anjou too, who so spectacularly in a very Marian move, over played his hand in the Netherlands. By implication these youngsters grew up believed their own royal propaganda and assuming the assertions of royal power in political theatre ( such as processions, grand entries in to cities, and hunting) were statements of fact rather than attempts to impress. Slyly Wormald hints at a similarity between Mary and her grandson Charles I - well who said that a historian can't have fun. There is something apt in the hint, Charles wasn't stupid, but rather like Grandma Mary both had a curious political naivety. Machiavelli in The Prince discussed wisdom and intelligence, some rulers he says, are clever and able, others are clever and able enough to recognise their own limitations and to chose wise and capable persons to advise them - while some don't even have the ability to do that.
The recent editions of this book are bookended by an introduction and concluding essay by Anne Groundwater, one of the curiosities of a book which dismisses Mary as a ruler on the grounds of her political inactivity is that there isn’t a particularly close reading of Mary’s administration, one of the results of Wormald’s book was to prompt further study and areas for further research which Groundwater discusses. It is hard not to think that one of the reasons for Mary's popularity as a Romantic figure is because her story dovetails into the rise of 'the angel in the House' view of women, because she was politically inept and hopeless, prone to outbreaks of hysterics when things didn't go her away, she could be taken as a safe emblematic figure for all women demonstrating that their proper place was purely domestic, as they were incapable constitutionally of wielding power, something which one couldn't conclude from the careers of contemporaries of Mary's such as Catherine de Medici or Margaret of Parma.
What above all emerges despite Wormald's focus on administration is the colour and drama of Scottish history - Mary's third (?) husband dying insane in a Norwegian dungeon, her executioner botching his job - left displaying her wig to the crowd, John Knox annoying almost everybody, Mary managing to get her final army defeated by a far inferior force, scheming incompetent ambassadors, insular inward looking English politics contrasted with an expansive European Scottish political life (human nature as Thucydides said doesn't much change).
June 6, 2018
The subtitle of this book, A Study in Failure, drew me to it as I'd always thought that Mary Queen of Scots wasn't really cut out to be a monarch especially at that very difficult time in European history when great religious ferment was in progress due to the establishment of the Protestant religion. However, I found it a bit disappointing. It isn't a personal biography and I didn't expect that - and the author recommends Antonia Fraser's study which I read years ago - but somehow it seemed a bit superficial.
There were a few interesting points such as the layout of the palaces at that time allowing a monarch to withdraw and cut themselves off with their 'favourites', and the statistics on how few council meetings Mary did attend. It was also interesting that she was depicted in the Casket Letters, which implicated her in the murder of her second husband, as a lovelorn masochist which the author says would have been novel if these had been forged by one of the men who stood to gain from her being deposed - as women at the time were either categorised as Madonna/Whore. Probably correct, as the concept of sadomasochism was not, I believe, developed until the 18th century. Though rather than likening this to Barbara Cartland novels as the author does, I would have thought 1980s bodicerippers would have been more accurate a comparison - and contemporary to the original publication of this book. A 3-star read, with some interest but not as enjoyable or informative as I'd hoped.
There were a few interesting points such as the layout of the palaces at that time allowing a monarch to withdraw and cut themselves off with their 'favourites', and the statistics on how few council meetings Mary did attend. It was also interesting that she was depicted in the Casket Letters, which implicated her in the murder of her second husband, as a lovelorn masochist which the author says would have been novel if these had been forged by one of the men who stood to gain from her being deposed - as women at the time were either categorised as Madonna/Whore. Probably correct, as the concept of sadomasochism was not, I believe, developed until the 18th century. Though rather than likening this to Barbara Cartland novels as the author does, I would have thought 1980s bodicerippers would have been more accurate a comparison - and contemporary to the original publication of this book. A 3-star read, with some interest but not as enjoyable or informative as I'd hoped.
July 20, 2011
I've noticed that very few people in my life give a rat's ass about Mary Queen of Scots. Or Lady Jane Grey. Or Edwards I through VIII for that matter. I have a stupendous love in my life at the moment but he doesn't care one lick about any European royalty, past or present. Why do I care so much about the British Royal Family? Why do I find myself lying awake at night perplexed about the sexual orientation of Richard the Lionheart? Or babbling liberally to strangers about the complexities of accession after Henry VIII? I just adore it all and simply can't get enough.
When asked to attend the play "Mary Stuart" currently on Broadway by the one person in my life who may care as much about this rubbish as myself (she happens to have written an incredible but hard to find book on a related topic called "Industry of Devotion"), I jumped at the chance. I am not, I repeat not, a theater enthusiast. Goofy would be how I might describe most plays I've seen. The subject matter was certainly something that interested me, though, and the play was getting great reviews.
Seeing this play, originally penned by Schiller, was also a great excuse to finally read a biography of this one of many Mary's in English history, to wit: "Mary Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost" by Jenny Wormald. Besides the kick-ass title, I was drawn to this particular book based on the excellent reviews it was getting on Amazon and that everyone seemed to agree this was a less romanticized version of the tragic monarch's life. Thus commenced my early June of politics, passion and plays.
The book:
Really very good. Great, in fact. The life and reign of Mary Stuart (aka Queen of Scots) is a fascinating story that deserves dramatization on the cable networks as much as that of Henry VIII (sexism on Showtime is a post for another time, though). She was Queen of Scotland by the second week of her life. Her mother, Marie de Guise, was a powerhouse and political tactician that ran Scotland as regent for almost two decades. Mary spent most of her youth in France and, thanks to her mother's political expertise, married the heir to the French throne (the Dauphin if you're snooty), Francis II. Two years after Francis ascended to the throne (when his father, King Henri, was killed by a lance that pierced him through the eye!), during which time Mary Stuart was Queen of France and Scotland and laid claim to the English throne, poor Francis became ill and died. He was only 17 at the time and very sickly (something to do with undescended testicles! I swear! I'm not making this up!). Upon returning to Scotland, no longer Queen of France, Mary began what was to be a pathetic and lackluster reign. She didn't care about Scotland or being its Queen. Mary was just another Francophile who, for some reason, insisted she was entitled the throne of England.
The story gets pretty complex from there (cousins and uncles and illegitimate siblings screwing each other over for a little power and religious oppression). Suffice is to say that Mary had her second husband killed and then married the guy who executed the murderous plot. She then proceeded to plot against Elizabeth I from prison and was, probably justifiably, beheaded for it. It really doesn't get more powerfully dramatic than the ill-fated and misguided life of Mary Stuart. The only consolation to this waste of a monarch, is that her son, James I, went on to rule both England and Scotland - a unified rule that has, much to the chagrin of most Scots, lasted ever since. Jenny Wormald tells this tale impeccably and I could not tear my thoughts away from 16th century Britain for the duration of the read.
The play:
If you like drama and yelling in British accents then you'd love this play. It was pouring rain on the stage. Inside the theater! The costumes were incredible. What I wouldn't give to strap myself into one of those Elizabethan gowns (just for a minute). As suspected, however, there was little historical explanation of the circumstances and Mary Stuart was, as usual, painted as a martyr and Elizabeth as a tortured and crabby bitch. Oh well, it was quite entertaining anyway and the production (rain, costumes, acting, etc.) was incredible. Although, I'll never understand why plays and movies and the like become alternate versions of reality when the truth, be it the life of Elizabeth or Henry or Ann Boleyn or Mary Stuart, was dramatic enough.
When asked to attend the play "Mary Stuart" currently on Broadway by the one person in my life who may care as much about this rubbish as myself (she happens to have written an incredible but hard to find book on a related topic called "Industry of Devotion"), I jumped at the chance. I am not, I repeat not, a theater enthusiast. Goofy would be how I might describe most plays I've seen. The subject matter was certainly something that interested me, though, and the play was getting great reviews.
Seeing this play, originally penned by Schiller, was also a great excuse to finally read a biography of this one of many Mary's in English history, to wit: "Mary Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost" by Jenny Wormald. Besides the kick-ass title, I was drawn to this particular book based on the excellent reviews it was getting on Amazon and that everyone seemed to agree this was a less romanticized version of the tragic monarch's life. Thus commenced my early June of politics, passion and plays.
The book:
Really very good. Great, in fact. The life and reign of Mary Stuart (aka Queen of Scots) is a fascinating story that deserves dramatization on the cable networks as much as that of Henry VIII (sexism on Showtime is a post for another time, though). She was Queen of Scotland by the second week of her life. Her mother, Marie de Guise, was a powerhouse and political tactician that ran Scotland as regent for almost two decades. Mary spent most of her youth in France and, thanks to her mother's political expertise, married the heir to the French throne (the Dauphin if you're snooty), Francis II. Two years after Francis ascended to the throne (when his father, King Henri, was killed by a lance that pierced him through the eye!), during which time Mary Stuart was Queen of France and Scotland and laid claim to the English throne, poor Francis became ill and died. He was only 17 at the time and very sickly (something to do with undescended testicles! I swear! I'm not making this up!). Upon returning to Scotland, no longer Queen of France, Mary began what was to be a pathetic and lackluster reign. She didn't care about Scotland or being its Queen. Mary was just another Francophile who, for some reason, insisted she was entitled the throne of England.
The story gets pretty complex from there (cousins and uncles and illegitimate siblings screwing each other over for a little power and religious oppression). Suffice is to say that Mary had her second husband killed and then married the guy who executed the murderous plot. She then proceeded to plot against Elizabeth I from prison and was, probably justifiably, beheaded for it. It really doesn't get more powerfully dramatic than the ill-fated and misguided life of Mary Stuart. The only consolation to this waste of a monarch, is that her son, James I, went on to rule both England and Scotland - a unified rule that has, much to the chagrin of most Scots, lasted ever since. Jenny Wormald tells this tale impeccably and I could not tear my thoughts away from 16th century Britain for the duration of the read.
The play:
If you like drama and yelling in British accents then you'd love this play. It was pouring rain on the stage. Inside the theater! The costumes were incredible. What I wouldn't give to strap myself into one of those Elizabethan gowns (just for a minute). As suspected, however, there was little historical explanation of the circumstances and Mary Stuart was, as usual, painted as a martyr and Elizabeth as a tortured and crabby bitch. Oh well, it was quite entertaining anyway and the production (rain, costumes, acting, etc.) was incredible. Although, I'll never understand why plays and movies and the like become alternate versions of reality when the truth, be it the life of Elizabeth or Henry or Ann Boleyn or Mary Stuart, was dramatic enough.
March 26, 2020
A biography of MQOS that did not feel like I was reading a bodice ripper or melodrama. I think so many authors make the mistake of treating Mary like a larger than life person when she was not. Wormland places Mary into historical context and approaches her as a monarch. The book is about her reign and its effects... not about her love life.
July 16, 2018
Not a very long book, but one that requires a lot of the reader. Wormald focuses very narrowly on Mary’s actual performance as Queen regnant and far, far less on the romantic or tragic elements of her life. Along the way, Wormald assumes that the reader has a decent grasp of the history and political situation in Stewart Scotland as well as that of France, Spain, England, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, and the biographies of the major players. If you don’t, well, that’s what Google is for. I enjoyed this immensely (and picked it up mostly for the excellent subtitle after getting the rec from Book Riot’s For Real podcast).
February 17, 2017
Rating: 95%
While I don't fully agree with the author, it was interesting to see another point of view.
While I don't fully agree with the author, it was interesting to see another point of view.
September 11, 2010
This isn't a biography of Mary but a readable general introduction to her role as queen, as active ruler, and Wormald's judgement of Mary's abilities and achievements as ruler is wholly negative. She is utterly uninterested in the legend of Mary, the tragic Queen of Scots, or in the intricacies of her personal life and relationships. If you're looking for a thrilling exploration of Darnley's murder or a romantic examination of her passionate affair with Bothwell or yet another lengthy consideration of the long-vanished Casket Letters (which, by the way, she sees no reason to regard as anything but genuine, albeit possibly edited), look elsewhere; there are endless numbers of books with pretty covers that do those things. Instead, she examines how Mary performed as queen and comes to the conclusion that she was a singularly bad ruler -- incompetent, lacking in political judgement, always likely to do exactly the wrong thing, more concerned with the exaltedness of her position than with anything useful she could actually do with her power. In the end, Wormald says, she was more pathetic than tragic, someone "whose allotted role was beyond [her] attainment." She just wasn't up to it.
September 9, 2018
This book probably isn't what you think it is.
Despite its title, this book isn't really about Mary Queen of Scots, rather her kingdom, and how it was effected by her reign. Mary herself is of course central to this discussion, but she isn't strictly the point. Wormald makes her disinterest in- perhaps even disdain for - Mary as an individual clear, and dedicates little time to her explosive private life and personal scandals. Wormald even concedes that those looking for a more intimate portrait of the queen would be better served by Antonia Fraser's biography.
"A Study in Failure" is trenchantly argued and often with wit, painting a merciless picture of a bumbling ruler unworthy of her position. I was never bored reading it. I wrestled with whether to give it three or four stars, as many hoping for a book more centred around Mary as a person will be disappointed. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to judge this book by what it is, not what it isn't. And Wormald's book succeeds in one major way: it's made me excited to learn more. It's sparked my interest in Scottish history and the debate surrounding Mary Queen of Scots. For that, it is well deserving of four stars.
Despite its title, this book isn't really about Mary Queen of Scots, rather her kingdom, and how it was effected by her reign. Mary herself is of course central to this discussion, but she isn't strictly the point. Wormald makes her disinterest in- perhaps even disdain for - Mary as an individual clear, and dedicates little time to her explosive private life and personal scandals. Wormald even concedes that those looking for a more intimate portrait of the queen would be better served by Antonia Fraser's biography.
"A Study in Failure" is trenchantly argued and often with wit, painting a merciless picture of a bumbling ruler unworthy of her position. I was never bored reading it. I wrestled with whether to give it three or four stars, as many hoping for a book more centred around Mary as a person will be disappointed. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to judge this book by what it is, not what it isn't. And Wormald's book succeeds in one major way: it's made me excited to learn more. It's sparked my interest in Scottish history and the debate surrounding Mary Queen of Scots. For that, it is well deserving of four stars.
April 20, 2020
This was an interesting read, I especially liked how much focus was given on Scottish attitudes to monarchy, and there was definitely a lot of analysis on the Casket Letters that I hadn't discovered much before. A bleak outlook at Mary's queenship, but perhaps Mary's queenship was quite bleak - her legend seems to inspire more than her actual ruling, at least in Wormalds opinion. Sometimes I find this very pro-english/Elizabeth, but perhaps I had my own preconceptions of Mary that needed to be challenged! Style wise, I found Wormalds writing succinct but with a true depth to her analysis, which made this a fairly easy read as far as non fiction history books go. I honestly wish there was more.
April 16, 2023
This is a really good but dense read. I don't have the historical background to really evaluate the author's claims, but she makes a lively and convincing argument that Mary Queen of Scots was an abysmal failure as a ruler. Wormald is a Scottish historian who is quite vexed with her country's fixation on MQOS, and as she notes in her intro, she's not particularly interested in Mary's personal life so much as her actual actions as ruler.
To that end, she finds Mary a remarkably passive, disinterested monarch, one who was far more concerned with the thrones she married into (France) and claimed (England) than the one she actually had (Scotland). To me, one of the most interesting aspects was Wormald's discussion of how Scottish nobility and monarchy was quite different from the English or French model and her argument that depictions of the Scottish nobles as impossibly difficult to handle is from the perspective of an outsider unfamiliar with the system, especially Tudor historians. Rather, she argues that Scottish nobles could be quite forceful in personality, but they expected the same from their monarch. Indeed, they expected a monarch to have a fierce pride in Scotland and a personal interest in ruling that Mary lacked and that her decision to resent them and want more control over them while also being passive toward them was the worst possible course of action.
To that end, she finds Mary a remarkably passive, disinterested monarch, one who was far more concerned with the thrones she married into (France) and claimed (England) than the one she actually had (Scotland). To me, one of the most interesting aspects was Wormald's discussion of how Scottish nobility and monarchy was quite different from the English or French model and her argument that depictions of the Scottish nobles as impossibly difficult to handle is from the perspective of an outsider unfamiliar with the system, especially Tudor historians. Rather, she argues that Scottish nobles could be quite forceful in personality, but they expected the same from their monarch. Indeed, they expected a monarch to have a fierce pride in Scotland and a personal interest in ruling that Mary lacked and that her decision to resent them and want more control over them while also being passive toward them was the worst possible course of action.
May 27, 2019
4.5*
This is not really a biography of Mary in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a much dryer assessment of the political context prior, during and after her rule as well as an assessment of Mary as a Renaissance monarch. Wormald's study is particularly important as it recontextualised Mary's rule specifically as a Scottish monarch, rather than comparing her to the Tudor monarchs in England.
If you have any Romantic notions of Mary then read this to correct those. As the subtitle implies, Mary was a dithering vacuous monarch with little care for ruling her country strongly. With Wormald's book emerges a historical personage who quite frankly doesn't deserve the amount of positive attention she receives in the modern day.
My only issue was the way in which Wormald completely sidestepped the theoretical issue of gender, but the essay provided at the end goes some way in offering perspectives which do address this issue.
This is not really a biography of Mary in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a much dryer assessment of the political context prior, during and after her rule as well as an assessment of Mary as a Renaissance monarch. Wormald's study is particularly important as it recontextualised Mary's rule specifically as a Scottish monarch, rather than comparing her to the Tudor monarchs in England.
If you have any Romantic notions of Mary then read this to correct those. As the subtitle implies, Mary was a dithering vacuous monarch with little care for ruling her country strongly. With Wormald's book emerges a historical personage who quite frankly doesn't deserve the amount of positive attention she receives in the modern day.
My only issue was the way in which Wormald completely sidestepped the theoretical issue of gender, but the essay provided at the end goes some way in offering perspectives which do address this issue.
February 11, 2019
Okay...so I have to admit that I was anticipating a completely different book when I bought this at HPB. I don’t know much about Mary Queen of Scots and I wanted to read a historical account of her life after listening to a podcast about it.
Well...I picked up something completely different and I was a bit shocked. To say that Jenny Wormald dislikes Mary Queen of Scots would be an understatement. Wormald hates Mary and makes that abundantly clear throughout.
I think Wormald’s argument had merit, but I wish I would have read a less bias biography before reading this argument. Wormald argues that Mary Queen of Scots was “an inept ruler” (103). Wormald asserts that Mary Queen of Scots is the only “reigning monarch who did not want to reign” (13).
I think I’ll appreciate this book more after I read a biography of Mary.
Well...I picked up something completely different and I was a bit shocked. To say that Jenny Wormald dislikes Mary Queen of Scots would be an understatement. Wormald hates Mary and makes that abundantly clear throughout.
I think Wormald’s argument had merit, but I wish I would have read a less bias biography before reading this argument. Wormald argues that Mary Queen of Scots was “an inept ruler” (103). Wormald asserts that Mary Queen of Scots is the only “reigning monarch who did not want to reign” (13).
I think I’ll appreciate this book more after I read a biography of Mary.
May 16, 2008
This is a great study of Mary, Queen of Scots. Wormald focuses on Scottish politics to place Mary in the correct context. She shows that Scotland was not as wild and uncivilized as much of Europe thought at the time. The old title of this book was Mary, Queen of Scots: A Study in Failure, if that tells you anything about how Wormald feels about Mary and her rule.
August 31, 2020
I kind of DNF-ed it because I lost the mood to read non-fics. But would definitely pick it up again soon once I’m feeling like it because it’s kinda good.
It’s mostly the biography of Mary Stuart herself (like Wikipedia but also a literal hand piece of literary) and I’ve read it before. The pictures were also fascinating to see and it’s probably one of my favourites.
It’s mostly the biography of Mary Stuart herself (like Wikipedia but also a literal hand piece of literary) and I’ve read it before. The pictures were also fascinating to see and it’s probably one of my favourites.
October 19, 2022
un recuento y análisis brillante sobre el reinado de mary. la autora es sumamente crítica de las decisiones y la ineptitud política de mary mientras que a su vez reconoce que nunca fue preparada para reinar escocia y extiende cierto nivel de simpatía hacia lo que la reina tuvo que vivir estando en cautiverio.
April 27, 2022
perfect for girls who have just never gotten the mary queen of scots thing except jenny was a fellow at the university of oxford and decided to do something about it, for haters only
January 24, 2025
This is not a biography on Mary Queen of Scots. The first 100 pages was leading up to when Mary would be Queen of the Scots. She mainly talked about the minority of Mary Queen of Scots. So the last 100 pages, talked about her time as queen and her time as a prisoner.
I am not sure why one person, this author that despises Mary so much would write a book about her.
Some of the authors thoughts of Mary and this was in the Foreword:
- author called her a tedious creature.
- author didn’t think much of her as a ruler
- author concludes that Mary had little wit and no judgment and that she never stopped at one mistake
- author states Mary failed as her duties as a catholic monarch
- author states that if Mary had understood how to rule the way of her Stewart forebears, there’s nothing to stop her ruling effectively. In my opinion, there’s not many, if any of the Stewart Kings that ruled effectively before her and after
- author includes Mary was a tragic figure case of someone born to supreme power who was unable to cope with her responsibilities
- author commented on three films that were to be released in 1997. “I can’t understand why anyone would want to make a film about such an overrated woman” but yet here she is writing a book on MQoS and then the book was republished later on
- “Those of us today who regard Mary as a distinctly tedious pain in the neck and only grown, and yet another romantic outburst”
- author calls King James V remarkable. In what way? Many illegitimate children; king became alienated from his nobility more and more and the English routes the Scots at Solway Moss.
- author states where the casket letters forgeries or real? It has been proven that they were forgeries.
- author complains that the British library catalog of printed books. The Virgin Mary has 150 pages devoted to her, Mary Queen of Scots, 455 books, Mary Tudor 73 and Richard III, 38. But then again here she is writing a book on Queen Mary.
- author states “in fact, every Stewart King between 1424 and 1542 was able to make his presence felt abroad precisely because he could impose so effectively at home“. I don’t think many of the Stewart kings were that good because if that’s the case, we would be reading about them or there would be documentaries
- author says that Queen Mary’s half brother James Stewart “Moray was a true Stewart: tough, able, masterful, self interested. Not sure what she meant by true Stewart but he led the Lords of the Congregation in rebellion against MQoS; developed a conviction to oust the Queen Regent; wanted power and became wealthy as Mary's closest advisor; led the rebellion against Mary after she married Lord Darnley; forced Mary to abdicate; defeated Mary's army at the battle of Langside; suppressed Mary's final effort to regain power. He sounds like a true winner.
- author called Mary a menace
- author “Mary ended her life a complete failure”
- Author feels that Mary should be judged on her abilities as a monarch, not merely a female monarch. let’s ask John Knox what he felt about a female ruler.
My opinion why Mary’s failed:
Can imagine becoming a queen of a country at the age 18. You have been away from Scotland almost 13 years and the Scots considered you more French than Scottish and while she was in France, did the French prepare her at all to become a ruler of a country?
- female
- too young
- Raised in France. Scots were already probably tired of the French with Queen Mary’s mother and French troops on Scottish soil.
- 18-year-old returning to a backward and lawless kingdom of Scotland
- She was Catholic in a Protestant country
- Marriage failures
- Scottish Reformation / John Knox
- Queen Elizabeth help the transformation when her protestant lords led the Reformation rebellion in Scotland, ensuring thall MQoS would return as a Catholic sovereign to rule a protestant country.
Normally when I finish reading a book I’ll add it to my collection in my library, but I feel the only use for this book is wiping my 🫏 with it.
I am not sure why one person, this author that despises Mary so much would write a book about her.
Some of the authors thoughts of Mary and this was in the Foreword:
- author called her a tedious creature.
- author didn’t think much of her as a ruler
- author concludes that Mary had little wit and no judgment and that she never stopped at one mistake
- author states Mary failed as her duties as a catholic monarch
- author states that if Mary had understood how to rule the way of her Stewart forebears, there’s nothing to stop her ruling effectively. In my opinion, there’s not many, if any of the Stewart Kings that ruled effectively before her and after
- author includes Mary was a tragic figure case of someone born to supreme power who was unable to cope with her responsibilities
- author commented on three films that were to be released in 1997. “I can’t understand why anyone would want to make a film about such an overrated woman” but yet here she is writing a book on MQoS and then the book was republished later on
- “Those of us today who regard Mary as a distinctly tedious pain in the neck and only grown, and yet another romantic outburst”
- author calls King James V remarkable. In what way? Many illegitimate children; king became alienated from his nobility more and more and the English routes the Scots at Solway Moss.
- author states where the casket letters forgeries or real? It has been proven that they were forgeries.
- author complains that the British library catalog of printed books. The Virgin Mary has 150 pages devoted to her, Mary Queen of Scots, 455 books, Mary Tudor 73 and Richard III, 38. But then again here she is writing a book on Queen Mary.
- author states “in fact, every Stewart King between 1424 and 1542 was able to make his presence felt abroad precisely because he could impose so effectively at home“. I don’t think many of the Stewart kings were that good because if that’s the case, we would be reading about them or there would be documentaries
- author says that Queen Mary’s half brother James Stewart “Moray was a true Stewart: tough, able, masterful, self interested. Not sure what she meant by true Stewart but he led the Lords of the Congregation in rebellion against MQoS; developed a conviction to oust the Queen Regent; wanted power and became wealthy as Mary's closest advisor; led the rebellion against Mary after she married Lord Darnley; forced Mary to abdicate; defeated Mary's army at the battle of Langside; suppressed Mary's final effort to regain power. He sounds like a true winner.
- author called Mary a menace
- author “Mary ended her life a complete failure”
- Author feels that Mary should be judged on her abilities as a monarch, not merely a female monarch. let’s ask John Knox what he felt about a female ruler.
My opinion why Mary’s failed:
Can imagine becoming a queen of a country at the age 18. You have been away from Scotland almost 13 years and the Scots considered you more French than Scottish and while she was in France, did the French prepare her at all to become a ruler of a country?
- female
- too young
- Raised in France. Scots were already probably tired of the French with Queen Mary’s mother and French troops on Scottish soil.
- 18-year-old returning to a backward and lawless kingdom of Scotland
- She was Catholic in a Protestant country
- Marriage failures
- Scottish Reformation / John Knox
- Queen Elizabeth help the transformation when her protestant lords led the Reformation rebellion in Scotland, ensuring thall MQoS would return as a Catholic sovereign to rule a protestant country.
Normally when I finish reading a book I’ll add it to my collection in my library, but I feel the only use for this book is wiping my 🫏 with it.
August 9, 2023
There are several Scottish historians who try to rehabilitate the reputations of Scottish kings or queens, with variable success. The late Jenny Wormald is not one of these. She is no apologist for the failings of this monarch of Scotland, indeed she finds little to recommend the unfortunate, inept Mary Queen of Scots.
This is not a biography of Mary. It is narrow in its focus on the style (or lack) of monarchy and her many failings. By the time Wormald has finished with her Mary comes across as an almost pathetic person in a power vacuum unable to dominate or influence her subjects. Mary let her self and Scotland down. Wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Other books more positive about Mary are available.
This is not a biography of Mary. It is narrow in its focus on the style (or lack) of monarchy and her many failings. By the time Wormald has finished with her Mary comes across as an almost pathetic person in a power vacuum unable to dominate or influence her subjects. Mary let her self and Scotland down. Wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Other books more positive about Mary are available.
July 1, 2025
Definitely not the place to start in learning about Mary Stuart, but it's an excellent analysis of her six year reign. Wormald offers a lot of convincing arguments that would leave any Marian apologist hard-pressed to formulate a cogent rebuttal. The only downfall imho is her research regarding the Casket Letters. As she argues, the trials occurred after the abdication and, hence, do not pertain to her rule as queen of Scotland, but I believe that as the letters were brought up at all in her text and, ostensibly, were composed during Mary's reign, they should have been addressed more accurately and in depth. Brilliant read!
February 26, 2022
I didn't agree with a lot of Wormald's argument but I appreciated that (unlike many Marian works) her writing is logical, and it criticised Mary's reign for its supposed political incompetency rather than for her personality. However, although the points she made were thoughtful and backed up by a lot of primary sources, my only criticism is I found the argument lacked nuance and would've been even more convincing had it been more balanced
June 25, 2025
Finally finished 🙏🏼 This was definitely not the best starter biography as was entirely about Mary’s rule and the politics surrounding it rather than about Mary the person, which is what I was looking for. But fascinating argument as to how she is one of the world’s most famous failures. I did feel for her in the end - who among us has not been 25 and stupid; unfortunate that she had to experience that on the world stage with no chance for apology or second chances.
May 13, 2022
Extremely interesting as well as captivating i found myself agreeing with the authors arguements and enjoyed the very agruemntative style of the book. I think it was very well made and is a good interesting read! Its not my favorite and definitely not my style of book but i still thoroughly enjoyed it regardless!
September 24, 2024
The problem is that I should have read it when it was new. Now it reads oddly with constant breathless 'isn't it amazing this new thing we now know', and constant claims for new arguments with which we are all familiar.
So, still an important book, but it's style means it's not worn well.
So, still an important book, but it's style means it's not worn well.
March 25, 2018
really enjoyed it! didn't fully agree with some point
July 20, 2018
Great information in so much detail
February 15, 2020
Well written book with lots of information but it was probably too scholarly for me. I think I needed some previous knowledge before embarking on this book.
October 30, 2021
Readable and informative, but lacks cognisance of the shades of grey - it's a book designed to find fault, and find fault only. Still it was a useful part of my research.
November 5, 2024
Disappointed
Not what I was looking for in a book. Too many dates and publications. Was looking for something more along the lines of Phillips Gregory. More of a reference book.
Not what I was looking for in a book. Too many dates and publications. Was looking for something more along the lines of Phillips Gregory. More of a reference book.
September 5, 2020
I find this confusing, as it started out with a foreword of what Jenny Wormald's contribution to Scottish history has been - she sends very well regarded, erudite and intelligent. However, also apparently anti establishment, contrarian and willing to challenge orthodoxies, especially those well worn paths of conventional history. As someone passionate about world history and particularly that relating to my heritage and cultural context, I supposed a history of Mary, Queen of Scots by a woman historian to be different. It was, unsurprisingly so, but I'm still confused. It helps to have the general or conventional history in mind first - to be better equipped for a contrary, unexpected or revelatory view that changes or enlightens your understanding of the whole picture. I wasn't sure if this text delivered on this. It left me questioning if it changes what you expect to learn if the presentation of history on a very popular topic is markedly different to the accepted or common path. Does taking a super differrnt historical approach actually make it too difficult to think differently when presented with new evidence? Is there simply a limit to what we can learn about a topic or event, that once we're saturated, we can't break through to new ground unless there's a ton of new books on the topic, or a movie made or some new shift that helps everyone move on to the new version of old history? If you're judging an historical text on whether the author made you think this seriously and deeply, then they're an exceptional historian. Well done, Jenny Wormald.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews