Tudor Book and Film Reviews - Mary Queen of Scots
On this day in 1587, Mary Queen of Scots was executed at Fotheringhay Castle. For anyone that is interested in Mary’s life, I have two recommendations:
Book recommendation– “Mary Queen of Scots” by Antonia Fraser, 2009, Phoenix.
This book simply has everything you need to know about Mary’s life and is one of the best non-fiction books I have read. It looks at all of the events in her life from all different perspectives and really scrutinizes the different points of view. When Antonia goes into detail about the Babington Plot, there was one particular paragraph in the book that stood out for me:
“If to understand all is to forgive all, then it is certainly possible against this background to forgive Mary for tacitly acceding to – for her letter came to no more than that – a conspiracy involving the assassination of Elizabeth. Her own agreement was entirely in the context of a captive seeking to escape her guards, and may be compared to the actions of a prisoner who is prepared to escape by a certain route, even if it may involve the slaying of a jailer by another hand.”
Antonia showed very well Mary’s side of the story and how she did eventually get caught in the web deliberately spun to trap her by Spymaster Francis Walsingham. Also, I think the line “to forgive all is to understand all” can be applied to many other controversial figures in the Tudor period, such as Jane Boleyn; there is always another side to the story.
Film recommendation – “Mary Queen of Scots” (2013) starring Camille Rutherford and Aneurin Barnard.
I think to make a film about Mary’s life and compress in two hours isn’t an easy task. Her life was stranger than fiction and had more twists that an Eastenders Christmas special. However, this film did make a good attempt at this.
For anyone that’s looking for a movie like “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”, they may be disappointed because it’s a bit more straight to the point and grittier, but don’t let that put you off. What it lacks in razzle, dazzle and glamour, it makes up for in authenticity. I’m not an expert on Mary’s life, but from what I do know, I think the film was historically accurate – it roughly kept to the timeline of events and didn’t seem to add in fictional incidences, or people that didn’t exist. It would have been nice to have seen a bit more of the glamour of the French court that she was brought up in as the film did quickly whizz through that section of her life. However, on the flip-side, the costume she wore when in mourning for her first husband Francis II was exactly the same as the costume the real Mary had worn in a famous portrait showing her in mourning, so again, even though there’s no glamour and sparkle, the film did pay attention to some historical accuracy.
I think the portrayal of Mary, played by Camille Rutherford, is very accurate too compared to other portrayals. Most dramas seem to forget that Mary had a French background, whereas in this film she is very fluent in French and alternates between the French and English language. Mary’s second husband, Lord Darnley, was played very well by Aneurin Barnard too. The film showed very well how their relationship gradually deteriorated and implies that Mary may have been involved in his assassination, a topic which is still debated on today.
It’s definitely a film for the amateur historians. Anyone that doesn’t know that much about her life beforehand may feel a bit lost, or would need some explanation about some of the scenes in the film. However, saying that, it’s still worth watching if you are interested in finding out more about Mary’s life.
Image – Mary (Camille Rutherford) and Lord Darnley (Aneurin Barnard)
