Scan barcode
beccabeccalee's review against another edition
David Starkey is an apt biographer. He has an eye for hidden history. In this book he captures both the fascinating and bizarre and has a very natural voice for biography. Here he decides to focus on Elizabeth's upbringing (essentially her queen-making) rather than the breast-plate-toting, white-stallion-riding queen of 1500s British imperialism. Here she is, in all her un-glory, the girl before Gloriana - involved in intrigues, assassination plots, the Protestant uprising, family politics, and even some brief and bizarre brushes with romance. The story, like any chapter of British history, is fascinating and complicated. Most of the time I wanted to pick this up and keep reading.
Yet there are moments when Starkey gets a bit caught up in complex party politics surrounding Elizabeth's ascension. He'll rattle off names and point them out as supporters, rebels, half-supporters, flip-floppers, etc. Besides trying to keep all the Northumberlands and Somersets apart, I'm not sure all this politicking gets us much closer to understanding Elizabeth's history as a queen. I think some of this could be spared - it's a bit of a slower read at times. Overall, it's a wonderfully thorough and scintillating portrayal of the young pre-queen and her rise to power (with no details spared). It really made both Tudor and Elizabethan England come alive.
Yet there are moments when Starkey gets a bit caught up in complex party politics surrounding Elizabeth's ascension. He'll rattle off names and point them out as supporters, rebels, half-supporters, flip-floppers, etc. Besides trying to keep all the Northumberlands and Somersets apart, I'm not sure all this politicking gets us much closer to understanding Elizabeth's history as a queen. I think some of this could be spared - it's a bit of a slower read at times. Overall, it's a wonderfully thorough and scintillating portrayal of the young pre-queen and her rise to power (with no details spared). It really made both Tudor and Elizabethan England come alive.
tlbright's review against another edition
3.0
This was pretty interesting until I got to the period where Elizabeth actually takes the throne. At that point, the details became overwhelming and dull. It took me a long time to get through the last 100 pages or so.
snowblu3's review against another edition
3.0
I liked it, but there were sections that were pretty dry.
pixiespice16's review against another edition
4.0
The last 3-4 chapters dragged a bit for me but the rest of the book was delightful.
bibliotequeish's review against another edition
4.0
I will read anything about the House Tudor.
While this book did not bring anything "new" it is still an enjoyable book to read.
srash's review against another edition
4.0
Really interesting, well-written, and occasionally quite funny biography of Elizabeth I that focuses on her early years and how they informed her rule as queen. I didn't always agree with the author's conclusions--and found some of his opinions obnoxious--but he clearly knows his Elizabethan history and a lot of what he said made sense, especially about her family dynamics with her father. It was also particularly interesting to read about how Elizabeth toed a careful line during his sister's reign and how her household was involved in a lot of plotting and scheming that Elizabeth could never truly be implicated in, though her involvement to some degree seems likely.
jillka777's review against another edition
4.0
Definitely more of an academic-type read. But Starkey is one of the top Elizabethan historians, if that's your thing.
melenareads's review against another edition
4.0
Great introduction to Elizabeth’s life, up to the point that she becomes queen.
Listened to the audio (doesn’t appear in the list of formats) and found the narrator really good.
Listened to the audio (doesn’t appear in the list of formats) and found the narrator really good.
happilywilted's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.0
I'm convinced that the ghost of Queen Elizabeth paid this author to write her in the most complimentary way possible, and that his long-lost uncle was one of the men that were burned at the stake by Queen Mary.
The way he wrote about Mary was kind of weird. I get that she literally killed hundreds of people, so she's bad, but he called her: a loser, mannish, dumpy, pudgy (the actual words that he used). Each time he used colorful language to describe her ugliness, I should've taken a shot, because by the end, I'd be drunk. He also described her barren status and used how her voice was deep like a man to make her even more unattractive. More focus on her mass executions would've been more sufficient because it wasn't really focused on. Just briefly.
Elizabeth, in contrast, was called Cinderella in comparison and Mary was her ugly stepsister (I'm not kidding, he actually said that).
This was okay, but I recognized that it was biased, because at the end, he briefly says that Elizabeth goes on to make England like Mary's England in her last years and kills people and has the Catholic's fleeing, but she had "empathy" and "sympathy" so she's not like Mary (lol).
And then he described the great Mary Queen of Scots as careless and how she "committed sins of the flesh" and was too busy straight banging and doing that for a long time to focus on politics. Like, sir, she wrote in code that was finally understood hundreds of years after her death (it was that difficult); I don't think she was that careless. Maybe that's my Scottish bias coming out.
Whatever. I tried to like Elizabeth, but for some reason this made me dislike her. I can't explain it.
The way he wrote about Mary was kind of weird. I get that she literally killed hundreds of people, so she's bad, but he called her: a loser, mannish, dumpy, pudgy (the actual words that he used). Each time he used colorful language to describe her ugliness, I should've taken a shot, because by the end, I'd be drunk. He also described her barren status and used how her voice was deep like a man to make her even more unattractive. More focus on her mass executions would've been more sufficient because it wasn't really focused on. Just briefly.
Elizabeth, in contrast, was called Cinderella in comparison and Mary was her ugly stepsister (I'm not kidding, he actually said that).
This was okay, but I recognized that it was biased, because at the end, he briefly says that Elizabeth goes on to make England like Mary's England in her last years and kills people and has the Catholic's fleeing, but she had "empathy" and "sympathy" so she's not like Mary (lol).
And then he described the great Mary Queen of Scots as careless and how she "committed sins of the flesh" and was too busy straight banging and doing that for a long time to focus on politics. Like, sir, she wrote in code that was finally understood hundreds of years after her death (it was that difficult); I don't think she was that careless. Maybe that's my Scottish bias coming out.
Whatever. I tried to like Elizabeth, but for some reason this made me dislike her. I can't explain it.