Scan barcode
symbra9's review against another edition
informative
tense
slow-paced
2.5
I had a hard time deciding how many stars to give this book. It was a lengthy and tedious read, however one can forgive that if it is because there is so much information. And while there is much information, this book was so obviously biased and gave blatant lies as fact. The major ones I know about revolve around Anne boleyn, but it does lead me to question the accuracy of the rest of the information. I also felt that there was little included about Mary's relationship with Elizabeth. Their relationship was tumultuous and strained and I think it's important to have that information in a book about Mary's life. All in all I hope it was purely a mistake due to when the book was written. But the inaccuracies on Anne boleyn lead me to believe it was based more in bias than lack of information.
aidaninasia's review against another edition
2.0
It is never easy for me to review biographies or any other such historical books. There are so many things to consider. In terms of writing, the author Carolly Erickson, was good. When I read the biography of Stan Lee, I was irritated by how often the author repeated themselves.
This author did not, they wrote well and amusingly; most importantly to me, it was not monotonous or repetitive. However, considering that it is non-fiction, it was tedious more often than not. It took me far longer than it should’ve to finish reading it and I’m very happy that I have finished it; not because of what I’ve gained from it but because I’m just glad to be done with it.
That being said, there were some interesting parts in it and gaining knowledge is, in my opinion, always a good thing. I will say that I don’t understand why Queen Mary has received the nickname “Bloody Mary” because from what I can tell she didn’t cause more or less deaths than any of the other monarchs before and after in England and abroad.
This author did not, they wrote well and amusingly; most importantly to me, it was not monotonous or repetitive. However, considering that it is non-fiction, it was tedious more often than not. It took me far longer than it should’ve to finish reading it and I’m very happy that I have finished it; not because of what I’ve gained from it but because I’m just glad to be done with it.
That being said, there were some interesting parts in it and gaining knowledge is, in my opinion, always a good thing. I will say that I don’t understand why Queen Mary has received the nickname “Bloody Mary” because from what I can tell she didn’t cause more or less deaths than any of the other monarchs before and after in England and abroad.
xxstefaniereadsxx's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
4.0
This book is about Mary Tudor, who was the daughter of Katherine of Aragon and Henry VIII. Carolly Erickson is a wonderful historian. Her writing is detailed and engaging. I learned a lot about her, and Erickson makes you feel like you are really getting to know the subject she is writing about. This book was wonderful, and I enjoy her other books so much.
katymvt's review against another edition
4.0
I love Carrolly Erickson. This book kind of felt a bit long, but I think that was just because I've been trying to read it at the pool and such where it's loud and distracting. I'm not giving it a 5 because of that (even though it very well may be my fault), and that she said Anne of Cleves was 34 when she married Henry. I have read other things that said she was 24 and I looked it up on the internet, and I got 24 again, so I think that may be an error on her part.
thepenismightier's review against another edition
1.0
I read an older edition that I hope was fixed later. But this was very poorly edited, lacking necessary comments. The book bounces frequently back and forth in time and rarely gives dates so you can orient yourself. It's poorly cited. I know it would have been failed if this were handed into my high school due to poor formating of the citation and just plain not listing the sources at times. Clearly biased, relying on ambassadors too much while trying to gloss over the burnings of protestants. Erickson makes several assessments of Mary's personality that are poorly backed up.
If you want to read about the men and pretty much everyone else in Mary's life, go ahead, but even that is a shallow exploration. More detail went into fashion and decorations in ceremonies.
If you want to read about the men and pretty much everyone else in Mary's life, go ahead, but even that is a shallow exploration. More detail went into fashion and decorations in ceremonies.
estonia76's review against another edition
4.0
A humanizing portrait of a complicated and deeply sad woman.
wealhtheow's review against another edition
3.0
Despite the sensationalist title, this is a reasoned, well pieced together biography of Henry VIII's eldest child. Most of the book is set during Henry's reign, and Erickson provides far too much detail therein. I don't really need to know the mechanics of battles fought by Mary's father, particularly when Mary's own reign takes up only ~100 pages. Erickson focuses on odd details (she documents pretty much every uprising ever, no matter how small) while ignoring others (Mary's presence in the famous dynastic tapestry, Catherine Parr's attempts to bring the family together, Francis Brandon's close relationship with Mary that led to her pardon and her daughter's execution). Erickson reminded me that Mary loved sumptuous fabrics and jewels (a character quirk often forgetten by dramatists, who love putting her in dour black), but passes over her relationship with Elizabeth and everything to do with religious prosecution on Mary's part. I didn't always agree with her choices, but Erickson's scholarship is good.
nicgiolla's review against another edition
3.0
A bit out of date now, but still a pretty well balanced view of the life of Mary I
ericwelch's review against another edition
4.0
It’s easy to see why Erickson’s books have become so popular. She clearly demonstrates the political dynamics in the context of the culture of the time, while being ultimately sympathetic to her subjects.
As the only early heir to the throne, Mary held a position of privilege and power during her childhood. Katherine,her mother, it seemed was unable to have a male issue, and was having difficulty delivering any live child. Henry, being King, could take any kind of mistress he wished, and had a bastard son by one of his ladies who was rewarded with a marriage to one of his nobles.
Her education was vigorous, if unenlightened. Her teacher Vives, the Spanish humanist designed a plan of study that included Greek, Latin, and for amusement, biographies of self-sacrificing women. Vives had written in his On the Instruction of a Christian Woman that girls needed to remember they were inherently “the devil’s instrument, and not Christ’s.” This idea that women were inherently sinful was to form the foundation of her training with protection of her virginity uppermost in their plans. (Erasmus at first believed educating women was a waste of time, then changed his mind to believe that education would provide them with the knowledge and importance of protecting such an “inestimable treasure.”)
One wonders if her training and preparation for betrothal to the Emperor Charles in all things Spanish, might have colored views and biased her so against Protestantism, but that’s merely speculative on my part. In the four first years of her betrothal (she was only seven and was to depart for marriage to Charles at twelve) she was schooled in everything necessary to make her a perfect Spanish lady. As with so many of these alliances, it didn’t last. Problem for Harry was that a woman’s property, titles, incomes, and dowry all passed to the husband with marriage. The ramifications became more than a little disconcerting. If Henry died without an heir and the crown passed to Mary, who had already been anointed the Princess of Wales, the first time that position had ever been given to a woman, would Charles also inherit the English title?
Given that Katherine would be unlikely to bear another child, and even though Henry was having his way with Thomas Boleyn’s married daughter, Mary Carey, it’s no wonder he began to scheme a way to dispense with Katherine. And who should join the picture but soon-to-be headless, Anne Boleyn.
But back to Mary after the execution of Anne, Mary was gradually restored to the good graces of the King (thanks also to Henry’s new wife, Jane Seymour, who was to bear him Edward. But Mary had to dissemble to worm her way back into court. She signed the certification of submission all the while writing elsewhere and to the Pope that her submission to the King with regard the church and succession was all balderdash. She constantly lied to Henry about it when asked claiming it was all for God, the end justifying the means.
The title is perhaps a bit misleading. The book really focuses little on her persecution of Protestants, although she did encourage their burning at the stake, often gruesomely. It all started to go badly following her marriage to Philip of Spain. The Spanish were generally despised by most of the English and even though Philip made every effort to be conciliatory and on his best behavior, following Mary's false pregnancy, he couldn't wait to move to Flanders where he was more at home as a King, something he wasn't really in England.
I couldn't help but wonder, if Mary, with her obsessive religiosity, wasn't in a bit over her head.
A marvelous read.
As the only early heir to the throne, Mary held a position of privilege and power during her childhood. Katherine,her mother, it seemed was unable to have a male issue, and was having difficulty delivering any live child. Henry, being King, could take any kind of mistress he wished, and had a bastard son by one of his ladies who was rewarded with a marriage to one of his nobles.
Her education was vigorous, if unenlightened. Her teacher Vives, the Spanish humanist designed a plan of study that included Greek, Latin, and for amusement, biographies of self-sacrificing women. Vives had written in his On the Instruction of a Christian Woman that girls needed to remember they were inherently “the devil’s instrument, and not Christ’s.” This idea that women were inherently sinful was to form the foundation of her training with protection of her virginity uppermost in their plans. (Erasmus at first believed educating women was a waste of time, then changed his mind to believe that education would provide them with the knowledge and importance of protecting such an “inestimable treasure.”)
One wonders if her training and preparation for betrothal to the Emperor Charles in all things Spanish, might have colored views and biased her so against Protestantism, but that’s merely speculative on my part. In the four first years of her betrothal (she was only seven and was to depart for marriage to Charles at twelve) she was schooled in everything necessary to make her a perfect Spanish lady. As with so many of these alliances, it didn’t last. Problem for Harry was that a woman’s property, titles, incomes, and dowry all passed to the husband with marriage. The ramifications became more than a little disconcerting. If Henry died without an heir and the crown passed to Mary, who had already been anointed the Princess of Wales, the first time that position had ever been given to a woman, would Charles also inherit the English title?
Given that Katherine would be unlikely to bear another child, and even though Henry was having his way with Thomas Boleyn’s married daughter, Mary Carey, it’s no wonder he began to scheme a way to dispense with Katherine. And who should join the picture but soon-to-be headless, Anne Boleyn.
But back to Mary after the execution of Anne, Mary was gradually restored to the good graces of the King (thanks also to Henry’s new wife, Jane Seymour, who was to bear him Edward. But Mary had to dissemble to worm her way back into court. She signed the certification of submission all the while writing elsewhere and to the Pope that her submission to the King with regard the church and succession was all balderdash. She constantly lied to Henry about it when asked claiming it was all for God, the end justifying the means.
The title is perhaps a bit misleading. The book really focuses little on her persecution of Protestants, although she did encourage their burning at the stake, often gruesomely. It all started to go badly following her marriage to Philip of Spain. The Spanish were generally despised by most of the English and even though Philip made every effort to be conciliatory and on his best behavior, following Mary's false pregnancy, he couldn't wait to move to Flanders where he was more at home as a King, something he wasn't really in England.
I couldn't help but wonder, if Mary, with her obsessive religiosity, wasn't in a bit over her head.
A marvelous read.
More...