No comments about Later Manuscripts (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Jane Austen).

5 comments about Mary Queen of Scots.

1. This is the book that got me started reading about history in the first place, 10 years ago. It must be pretty good, at the time I was partying my butt off in SF and reading wasn't the first thing on my mind. I picked it up, couldn't put it down and haven't put down a book since. Read it, it rocks.



2. Overall, this is a well-written and well-researched biography, although not objective enough about its subject. I appreciated the beautiful writing and the thorough scholarship of this book, although in the end I could not share the author's unqualified admiration for Mary Queen of Scots.
   
   Ms. Fraser presents enough evidence to convince me that Mary probably was not involved beforehand in her second husband Darnley's murder, and that the infamous Casket Letters were probably forgeries or interpolations of other letters. She was certainly not prepared by her French upbringing to deal with the problems she found in Scotland, and was very ill-served by the brutal Scottish lords there, including her own half-brother.
   
   However, Mary apparently did willingly marry her husband's murderer, which cost her the love of her subjects; willingly fled to England even though she knew she was seen as a rival to Queen Elizabeth's throne; and later on became involved in conspiracies in England to overthrow Elizabeth, which virtually forced Elizabeth to have her executed. Even Ms. Fraser cannot explain away these naive and reckless actions, although she tries. Her bias towards her subject is rather obvious. I also shared other readers' frustration with the many untranslated French and Latin phrases, which slows down the reading for those of us not fluent in those languages.



3. amazing book makes you feel as if you want to be in that world most touching and amazingly well written with no bias and no dodgy facts very good choice of language



4. Before this book, I'd only just gotten started on my Mary Stuart research, having only read two "semi-biographies"(Mary and Elizabeth by Jane Dunn & Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Darnley) of her. I was hesitant about buying the book because I read the reviews of it on here and it sounded ugly. But I'm very glad I did buy it, because now I am much, much better informed on the subject of Mary than before.
   
   I'm an Antonia Fraser fan, and this book is written in her usual poetic and heart-warming style. She is, I'd have to say, among my favorite historical biographers. She is clearly very passionate about her subject and I was able to sympathize with Mary throughout. Likewise, she is very good about referencing unlike her counterpart Alison Weir.
   
   I'd have to disagree with the reviewers who said this book made Mary out to be saintly. She is portrayed, in my opinion, as sweet and strong, but by no means perfect. There were times in the bio when I thought she was extremely foolish, and often times I was out and out annoyed by her. I agreed with Fraser's conclusion that Mary probably did not try kill her second husband, Henry Darnley and that it was a political set-up. I also agree with her about the Casket Letters. I'm on the fence about Bothwell. I think many of his actions are not at odds with a rapist and abductor. Likewise, I don't see how or why he would proceed to murder Darnley and just hope that Mary would marry him, which could mean prompt execution or life imprisonment. But I didn't mark this against Fraser, because I'm still trying to figure out what I feel on the subject, and also because she convincingly argued her side.
   
   
   I do take issue with a few slender things in the book. For one, I love Fraser's style, but I did find her constant use of footnotes distracting*. And I definitely agree with the reviewers who said it was biased against Elizabeth. Some of the commentary, such as sharp jabs at Elizabeth's beauty and lifestyle, were entirely editorial and completely uncalled for. Fraser degraded Elizabeth so hard at times that I felt her case for Mary might have been a little too weak. I've read several books on Elizabeth and none so far have made petty, out of place remarks about Mary and rightly so. Both were interesting, incredible women and one need not be knocked down at the expense of the other. This bio would have gotten five stars had there been a little more objectivity.
   
   
   
   
   
   *Most of them I felt could have been worked conveniently into the narrative.



5. Antonia Fraser's book, Mary Queen of Scots, is very readable and entertaining. However, the author's "hero-worship" of Mary and low opinion of English Queen Elizabeth I rings out loud and clear. Fraser makes history come alive; just be aware that this is her version of history.

No comments about The Life of Buffalo Bill.

No comments about Philip: A Portrait of the Duke of Edinburgh.

2 comments about Nicholas II: The Interrupted Transition.

1. A well-written and enjoyable work, d'Encausse offers a new interpretive approach to Nicholas II's influence upon the course of Russian history. Rather than weak and insecure, Nicholas II emerges with strongly held convictions of his obligations as autocrat though plagued by the realization of Russia's need to modernize. As for Empress Alexandra and Rasputin, they were ultimately unable to change Nicholas's fundamental positions on domestic or foreign policy. Shadowing Nicholas II's vision of Russian autocracy, d'Encausse also portrays a Russia experiencing sweeping changes in its social, economic, and political structures, changes which were largely the work of Nicholas's own ministers. Virtually until the last months before the revolutions of 1917, d'Encausse emphasizes options remaining to Nicholas II and, thus, leaving open the course of Russian history. Within the context of 1917 and the end of the autocracy, Russia's journey towards a modern democratic society were interrupted by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Clearly recognizing these competing themes, d'Encausse provokes the reader to reassess Nicholas II as a leader, a historical actor, and one working apparently against the historical currents for change dominating his reign. Overall, this work presents an intriguing reassessment of Russian history and the role of great persons.



2. Very informative book, but qualifies more as a textbook than nonfiction. Not an easy read, (keep a dictionary handy) but crammed full of essential and interesting information for all fans of Nicholas II. Would be a great reference resource for anyone researching Nicholas II or Russia during this era.

No comments about Suetonius: The Flavian Emperors (BCP Classical Studies) (BCP Classical Studies).

No comments about Queen Victoria.

3 comments about Letters of Henry Viii, 1526--29: Extracts from the Calendar of State Papers of Henry VIII (Uncovered Editions).

1. If you havent read the actual state papers it may be confusing. Most of them are extracts or abstracts of the original document, so quite a bit is missing as it is. I havent read this book, but my universities library had the whole collect of Calendars of Letters and state papers, Domestic series which has all of the documents from Henry's reign. If you liked that book, you may try and read those, although I am not sure you will be able to buy them, at least a low cost.



2. These are letters from those years when Henry was breaking with the Catholic Church in order to marry Anne Boleyn (and, not incidentally, eliminate its influence on English matters of state). It is part of the Uncovered Editions series, which publishes historic official papers not previously available in popular form.
   
   I'm a great believer in going to original source material, and this book shows that it's well worth the effort.
   
   The machinations and manœuverings are fascinating, as Henry and the Emperor each seeks to engage the Pope in his own interests. When a rumor spreads that the Pope has died, letters are sent calling for threats and bribery to install a Pope favorable to the King's cause. But he's not dead, after all.
   
   The Papacy and the Church are clearly shown as weak and vacillating, ( not to mention corrupt, as the Pope rewards those who contribute to his wars with cardinal's robes). The King doesn't exactly come off well, either, as one has a hard time believing that he really believed the dispensation invalid. His behavior towards Wolsey, whose strenuous efforts in his monarch's behalf were a failure, was, to put it mildly, ungrateful.
   
   Two quibbles (resulting in a "4" rather than a "5"). The title is a tad misleading as it implies that the letters were written by Henry, and although some are, the majority are from other players in the Divorce. Also, the notes could have been more expansive.
   
   Despite that, it's a most interesting collection.



3. While I wouldn't recommend this book for the casual reader who wants to know more about King Henry VIII, for scholars, it's wonderful to be able to see the original source documents that are so often briefly quoted in biographies.

No comments about The Kents: A Royal Family.

No comments about Queen Victoria and the Discovery of the Riviera.