What do you think?
Rate this book
Sovereign Ladies
1st John Murray 2007 trade edition paperback fine condition In stock shipped from our UK warehouse
576 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
29 people are currently reading
1943 people want to read
About the author
Maureen Waller
11 books22 followersMaureen Waller was educated at University College London, where she studied medieval and modern history. She received a master's degree at Queen Mary College, London, in British and European history 1660--1714. After a brief stint at the National Portrait Gallery, she went on to work as an editor at several prestigious London publishing houses. Her first book was the highly acclaimed 1700: Scenes from London Life. She currently lives in London with her husband, who is a journalist and author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
September 12, 2023
Sex-based discrimination and double-standards suck, but at least today, many parts of the world make this illegal. But back then, it was legal (and unfortunately still is in certain parts of the world today) to deny a woman so many opportunities taken for granted today just because of her sex. Education, land/property ownership, personal wealth, physical abuse, sexual abuse, etc. Even if all that was couched in 'well, that's how things were back then and many men (and women) did not even question that because they had never heard of feminism' it's still pretty awful and I am glad I did not live back in these times.
The six women in this book were all born into wealth and royalty. And as for men, wealth put them in a better position that someone of the same age/sex in poverty. However, that did not protect them against sex-based discrimination, and they were judged more harshly for things that men would have been able to more easily get away with, or accomplish. Hell, being royal/wealthy could, and would make them targets for manipulations and machinations (poor Jane Grey is a sad example) However anyone might have felt about any of these particular women, it's not hard to sympathize with the difficulties they had to deal with.
Even Victoria and Elizabeth II, who had more rights and opportunities than their predecessors, had their own share of sex-based problems to deal with. This book is certainly a far cry from the princess ideal held by so many little girls today. Being a Disney Princess might be just fantasy, but considering the reality, I can see why some adults love Disney Princesses too. This is honestly a fascinating and interesting history book, but some parts can be pretty sobering and depressing AF.
The six women in this book were all born into wealth and royalty. And as for men, wealth put them in a better position that someone of the same age/sex in poverty. However, that did not protect them against sex-based discrimination, and they were judged more harshly for things that men would have been able to more easily get away with, or accomplish. Hell, being royal/wealthy could, and would make them targets for manipulations and machinations (poor Jane Grey is a sad example) However anyone might have felt about any of these particular women, it's not hard to sympathize with the difficulties they had to deal with.
Even Victoria and Elizabeth II, who had more rights and opportunities than their predecessors, had their own share of sex-based problems to deal with. This book is certainly a far cry from the princess ideal held by so many little girls today. Being a Disney Princess might be just fantasy, but considering the reality, I can see why some adults love Disney Princesses too. This is honestly a fascinating and interesting history book, but some parts can be pretty sobering and depressing AF.
April 20, 2017
Waller's Sovereign Ladies, which discusses the six 'official' Queens Regnant of England then Great Britain, was a bit of a mix bag for me. Some chapters were stronger than others with regards to information and depth- for example, Victoria's 120+ pages are more than both Mary II and Anne's combined 90ish, and as a result contain more information and analysis of personalities, events, and politics. Having said that, the book is written clearly and concisely, and Sovereign Ladies does benefit from a strong introduction and conclusion.
I would recommend this book as an introduction to the six queens, their periods in history and the events of their reigns. It isn't detailed enough to be the last word on any of its subjects, but is clear enough to be a good jumping off point.
The queens discussed in Sovereign Ladies are Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne of Great Britain, Victoria, and the current queen Elizabeth II. Published in 2006, it doesn't include anything after this date (2012 jubilee, Prince William's wedding, etc.). Lady Jane Grey is looked at during the section about Mary I.
I would recommend this book as an introduction to the six queens, their periods in history and the events of their reigns. It isn't detailed enough to be the last word on any of its subjects, but is clear enough to be a good jumping off point.
The queens discussed in Sovereign Ladies are Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne of Great Britain, Victoria, and the current queen Elizabeth II. Published in 2006, it doesn't include anything after this date (2012 jubilee, Prince William's wedding, etc.). Lady Jane Grey is looked at during the section about Mary I.
February 8, 2009
This is a study of how being a woman affected the six women who ruled England ostensibly on their own- Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II. It chronicles both the negative effects- how unwilling many people were to accept a female sovreign, how concepts of what women should be and do worked against them, how merely having a female body affected things- marriages, pregnancies, children, and the positive effects- how many of these women used the concepts of femininity in place during their time to manipulate those around them and keep themselves secure when many a man might have found it hard to talk themselves out of trouble, and especially many discussions about how female archetypes- the goddess, the mother figure, the Virgin Mary (of course), the grandmother- kept them enshrined. Waller goes so far as to imply that it is Victoria and Elizabeth II's reigns that are largely responsible for keeping the British monarchy in place, and this may not have been possible had they not been women. I really enjoyed reading the struggles, triumphs and utter failures of these six women and their families with female active agency and power, and I thought she made some largely ignored points about the psychology that ran beneath all of these reigns.
Waller is extremely sympathetic to all six of these ladies. This was my only major problem with the book- I felt that she was on a mission to exonerate all six of them from all or most of any wrongdoings they may have committed during their lives by gaining sympathy for their plight as a female sovereign in a man's world. I found it particularly pronounced in Mary I's section and Elizabeth II's. In the first, she tried to exonerate 'Bloody' Mary of all responsibility for the destruction of churches and burnings of heretics that went on during her reign, which seemed wildly ridiculous to me. Elizabeth II's section largely read like royal propaganda. She makes sure to say that Elizabeth has deficiencies as a mother and that she's overly indulgent of her family due to not giving them enough of her time- but as a sovereign she appears to worship her as perfection. I just wish that the tone hadn't been quite so determinedly one-sided in examples, because it cast doubt on the rest of the chapters, which I found very well informed, balanced as impartial as a feminist lens reading is going to get- I particularly liked the chapters on Mary II and Victoria.
All in all, highly recommended- but not as a history- as a psychological study of women wielding power in a world where the system is built to tell them to do no such thing. There is also a worthwhile B-plot study of the transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy to the "democratic" symbolic monarchy of today.
Waller is extremely sympathetic to all six of these ladies. This was my only major problem with the book- I felt that she was on a mission to exonerate all six of them from all or most of any wrongdoings they may have committed during their lives by gaining sympathy for their plight as a female sovereign in a man's world. I found it particularly pronounced in Mary I's section and Elizabeth II's. In the first, she tried to exonerate 'Bloody' Mary of all responsibility for the destruction of churches and burnings of heretics that went on during her reign, which seemed wildly ridiculous to me. Elizabeth II's section largely read like royal propaganda. She makes sure to say that Elizabeth has deficiencies as a mother and that she's overly indulgent of her family due to not giving them enough of her time- but as a sovereign she appears to worship her as perfection. I just wish that the tone hadn't been quite so determinedly one-sided in examples, because it cast doubt on the rest of the chapters, which I found very well informed, balanced as impartial as a feminist lens reading is going to get- I particularly liked the chapters on Mary II and Victoria.
All in all, highly recommended- but not as a history- as a psychological study of women wielding power in a world where the system is built to tell them to do no such thing. There is also a worthwhile B-plot study of the transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy to the "democratic" symbolic monarchy of today.
January 5, 2015
Interesting, if somewhat pedestrian read. Okay to fill in a few hours.
March 10, 2018
England has only had 6 female monarchs: Mary I, Mary II, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Anne, and Victoria.
In this book, historian Maureen Waller takes a look at each of them in turn, revealing some interesting biographical items in this tome. Well researched and well written, it is not a dry historical story; it will hold the reader's interest throughout. Despite all that is written about each of them, this book does uncover some little known facts.
As someone extremely interested in the Tudor period of English history, I especially enjoyed reading about Mary I and her half sister, Elizabeth I. They were alike in some ways, but different in many others, especially when it came to the area of religion. Mary I was staunchly Catholic as was her mother, Katherine of Aragon, while Elizabeth I was protestant. Mary was nicknamed "Bloody Mary" because of the more than 300 Protestants who were burned at the stake during her reign. Ad you might expect, this did not endear her to her Protestant half sister. Adding to the demise of their relationship was the fact that Mary had her sister imprisoned in the Tower for a time. Mary wed Prince Phillip of Spain, but never had children. Her reign was short, and she failed in her attempt to realign England with the Papacy. She was not a beloved Queen by any stretch of the imagination.
Mary's reign was the direct opposite of her half sister's. Elizabeth I was loved by the people. During her time, religious tolerance was in place, she defeated the Spanish Armada, and England was prospering.
The book follows on through the present Queen, Elizabeth II.
In this book, historian Maureen Waller takes a look at each of them in turn, revealing some interesting biographical items in this tome. Well researched and well written, it is not a dry historical story; it will hold the reader's interest throughout. Despite all that is written about each of them, this book does uncover some little known facts.
As someone extremely interested in the Tudor period of English history, I especially enjoyed reading about Mary I and her half sister, Elizabeth I. They were alike in some ways, but different in many others, especially when it came to the area of religion. Mary I was staunchly Catholic as was her mother, Katherine of Aragon, while Elizabeth I was protestant. Mary was nicknamed "Bloody Mary" because of the more than 300 Protestants who were burned at the stake during her reign. Ad you might expect, this did not endear her to her Protestant half sister. Adding to the demise of their relationship was the fact that Mary had her sister imprisoned in the Tower for a time. Mary wed Prince Phillip of Spain, but never had children. Her reign was short, and she failed in her attempt to realign England with the Papacy. She was not a beloved Queen by any stretch of the imagination.
Mary's reign was the direct opposite of her half sister's. Elizabeth I was loved by the people. During her time, religious tolerance was in place, she defeated the Spanish Armada, and England was prospering.
The book follows on through the present Queen, Elizabeth II.
February 1, 2010
This book covers the six reigning Queens of England, defined by the author as those Queens Regnant who were crowned and anointed - in this case Queens Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II. This was a big, fat book - but eminently readable because the author writes the history so well. Though it is non-fiction, each Queen's life reads like a story, using history and documents without being a dry litany of facts and dates. For example, Mary Tudor's happy early childhood is illustrated by describing one of her Christmastides - made richer in detail by an actual list of gifts she received and from whom. The author occasionally goes into a little too much armchair psychology - but for the most part, her observations and interpretation of historical events is sound.
June 16, 2017
I knew a lot about Mary I and Elizabeth I and bought mainly for the other queens, as well as another new way of looking at them, in comparison with each other. Britain with a Queen mostly seems to work! I love having history presented in different ways even if I know a lot of the facts already. Brilliant.
October 24, 2007
Interesting histories of the six reigning queens of England, but steeped in politics. If you're looking for pure biography with lots of lurid details this is not the book to find it in. But it does give a nice historical and cultural context to each of the queen's reigns.
February 29, 2008
Holy my gosh.
I learned so much from this book. It wasn't just one of those historial fictions--it was straight facts. Apperently, there have only been six reigning queens. In over 1,000 years of monarchy.
Wow.
I learned so much from this book. It wasn't just one of those historial fictions--it was straight facts. Apperently, there have only been six reigning queens. In over 1,000 years of monarchy.
Wow.
August 11, 2017
fairly good book. very informative
May 24, 2017
While the subject matter was interesting, the writing was so bad that I constantly reread paragraphs to try to ascertain the author's intended thought.
August 17, 2014
I'm not particularly interested in England's history after the House of Tudor comes to an end (and even then, I care little for Elizabeth I - particularly later in her reign), but I picked this up in the interest of seeing how each of the very different queens in turn ruled their kingdom. Comparisons are made throughout the text, but mostly between Mary I and Elizabeth I, then Mary II and Anne, then Victoria and Elizabeth II. It is more of a history of each reign on its own, rather than a study of female rule as the title might imply.
Naturally the majority of the book is devoted to Mary I, Elizabeth I and Victoria. The history is decently researched in regards to the Tudor sisters, though I can't comment with any authority on Mary II, Anne, or Victoria, as I know nothing about these periods in England. Even with Elizabeth II ruling in my lifetime, I still learned some things about the dysfunctional House of Windsor - and found perhaps even more reason to dislike Charles. Seeing the Queen's children described as selfish, spoiled brats comes as little surprise, but referring to Princess Diana as unstable? That seems inaccurate.
In fact, as I mentioned in an update, the author does this often. She takes a flaw and expounds it, eager to throw around all sorts of negative adjectives for the queens, their husbands, children, advisors, etc. I'd be surprised to learn that the author enjoyed researching and writing this book, as she rarely seemed to say many positive things about any of her subjects.
Naturally the majority of the book is devoted to Mary I, Elizabeth I and Victoria. The history is decently researched in regards to the Tudor sisters, though I can't comment with any authority on Mary II, Anne, or Victoria, as I know nothing about these periods in England. Even with Elizabeth II ruling in my lifetime, I still learned some things about the dysfunctional House of Windsor - and found perhaps even more reason to dislike Charles. Seeing the Queen's children described as selfish, spoiled brats comes as little surprise, but referring to Princess Diana as unstable? That seems inaccurate.
In fact, as I mentioned in an update, the author does this often. She takes a flaw and expounds it, eager to throw around all sorts of negative adjectives for the queens, their husbands, children, advisors, etc. I'd be surprised to learn that the author enjoyed researching and writing this book, as she rarely seemed to say many positive things about any of her subjects.
July 18, 2017
Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II - the six queens regnant of England. This book should have talked about the toughness of each of these queens and everything they accomplished. None of them were expected to wear the crown, especially since the first two faced numerous death threats and the third took the crown by force. However, it seemed to revolve around all the men in their lives and how dependent they were on these men. Mary I and Elizabeth I grew up under a brutal father. Mary's section mainly focuses on trying to find the love she was denied by Henry VIII, the unrequited love by her husband Phillip II of Spain, and her longing for a child. Elizabeth, for her long tenure, was reduced to juggling the many dukes and princes sent her way, the men at court, and her favorites. Mary II and Anne, sisters who came to the throne after the Glorious Revolution were presented as happy housewives. Victoria, a fatherless child looked for someone to replace him in her ministers and then lost herself in Prince Albert. It describes her reliance on John Brown and her ministers after Albert passed. The end is a short section on Elizabeth II. It describes her childhood, coronation, makes a few pages describing her personality, and then ends with Diana's death and the years following. Overall disappointing.
March 19, 2012
I like that this book focused more on the relationship of the Queens to their throne. Each monarch viewed the monarch in her own distinct way - and thus ruled in her own way. It helps that I've read a bit on each Queen and so knew enough of the basics that I wasn't lost. Some background was helpful because each reign is touched on relatively lightly.
However, you do get a good sense of each Queen's strengths and weaknesses. Their attitudes towards their role and the struggle they each had to face: being a woman in a 'man's job' in a time when such a thing was seen as an anomaly.
My one qualm was sometimes the writing seemed a bit disjointed. A paragraph would change topic right in it's middle - a new thought mid sentence with little relation to what was said before and I found it a bit jarring - enough to notice it as a particular quirk of the author.
I agree with a previous reviewer that at times the author seems particularly unsympathetic to her subjects. I don't think a biographer has to like their subject.... but Waller seemed particularly judgmental and harsh in her criticism.
Overall, however, it was an interesting take on a fascinating subject.
However, you do get a good sense of each Queen's strengths and weaknesses. Their attitudes towards their role and the struggle they each had to face: being a woman in a 'man's job' in a time when such a thing was seen as an anomaly.
My one qualm was sometimes the writing seemed a bit disjointed. A paragraph would change topic right in it's middle - a new thought mid sentence with little relation to what was said before and I found it a bit jarring - enough to notice it as a particular quirk of the author.
I agree with a previous reviewer that at times the author seems particularly unsympathetic to her subjects. I don't think a biographer has to like their subject.... but Waller seemed particularly judgmental and harsh in her criticism.
Overall, however, it was an interesting take on a fascinating subject.
January 27, 2010
I checked this out to read the section on Victoria after seeing the movie "The Young Victoria". The movie is a good period piece with an interesting love story but I wanted to know some of the facts. I found that Waller was very accessible to someone unfamiliar with Victoria's reign. I enjoyed her style and felt that she provided a fairly comprehensive introduction to the subject in the space allotted. I liked it well enough to see what she had to say about the other monarchs.
February 11, 2010
A good biography of the six queens regnant of England. It isn't quite so much straight history as it is a study of the queens themselves--their attitudes, and how they dealt with the attitudes of the men around them. One can also trace through the book how the styles changed from truly ruling to merely reigning.
October 3, 2012
LOVED this! Snippet bios of the six regnant queens of England. Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II. Really interesting and sharp. As someone who prides herself on her knowledge of the British monarchy, I enjoyed this fresh take!!
June 20, 2020
A re-read of this one and while it wasn't as interesting as previously mainly as I have since read books focusing mainly on each queen I still found the section on Mary 1st excellent as there are not many books dedicated to her. Great read.
June 5, 2015
(Unfortunately, I lost a lot of my notes that I took on this book.. Here is what I have). And yes, the reviews do get shorter the further in the book we go; I apologize for that. Maybe at some point I can take the book out again and reread some of the chapters where my notes were misplaced.
As a whole, I really enjoyed reading this book. I will admit that while I've read numerous accounts of Mary I and Elizabeth I, I haven't read as much about the other queens. While I found that those two and Victoria have the most information tucked into them, I'll leave you with my thoughts on each section of the reigning woman.
MARY I:
As others have pointed out, Chapuys is an extremely biased source, therefore, taking his word on Anne Boleyn might not be the wisest idea. Chapuys was staunchly in the Catherine of Aragon camp, making him a natural enemy of Anne Boleyn. Taking his word as fact in some of these accounts irritated me a bit, because while Anne was no angel, she most certainly wasn't the devil Chapuys makes her out to be. In some instances, Chapuys has been known to repeat slander that we know not to be true, simply because it was damaging to Anne. Anyway, back to Anne - yes, she was not very kind to Mary, making her serve as Elizabeth's lady-in-waiting. Yes, she demanded that Mary acknowledge her as queen above her own mother. However, Anne had also offered to intercede with the king (who, let's not forget, had the power to stop all of this if he really was so inclined) if only Mary would do such. Though Anne just happened to be the second wife, and therefore, the one whose children would supplant Mary at the time, I can't see Anne herself being the root of all the trouble. Let's look to Jane Seymour, the third wife who came from quite an ambitious family. Can we really believe that Jane, and especially Jane's own family, wouldn't have, in the same circumstances, pressured Mary to accept Jane as queen above Catherine? The only reason Mary ends up not having to choose between Catherine and Jane is because Catherine is already dead by the time Jane is made Henry's third wife.
Moving on, because I can get quite heated about the treatment of Anne Boleyn in that section, we get to Mary's "attempt" at escape. To be truthful, I don't think she really wanted to leave the country, no matter what others say. Her mind wasn't made up one way or the other, and by hesitating, she sealed her own fate. (though she might think of that as God's way of telling her it wasn't to be).
Moving on to her relationship with her siblings, I was surprised, and slightly amused to find Edward described as a "cold prig". Mary's volatile relationship with Elizabeth is well known, though I wonder if she really believed that Elizabeth was guilty of plotting against her, or if she let her hatred of Anne Boleyn color her opinion of Elizabeth. Certainly, the matter of religion played quite heavily here, as Mary was a most devoted Catholic, but I have to wonder if deep in her heart, Mary really believed Elizabeth to be guilty of anything other than not being Catholic. Some of the “evidence” provided against Elizabeth is quite obviously fabricated by people wishing to save themselves, or people wishing to suck up to Mary and feed her information. Elizabeth was a very clever woman and Mary knew it, which makes me wonder if Mary knew the evidence was false and just wanted to believe it for the sake of… Whatever.
All in all, Mary showed herself to be a brave, determined woman in the face of much adversity. Though she may not have been popular as a queen, I think as a person, she had many admirable qualities. With the threat of execution hanging over her head in her early years, she managed to hold fast to her beliefs, both religious and personal. I genuinely believe the accounts that call her merciful and kind as a queen. Though often remembered as “Bloody Mary” we forget that her father, Henry VIII, also had people put to death for religion reasons. (namely, refusing to acknowledge him as Supreme Head of the Church). Though Mary was unmovable on the subject of religion, it is quite probable that she was doing what she sincerely thought would be in the best interest of her people, not out of spite or malice. Mary wanted to “save” her people, though she didn’t go about in a way that is excusable. She held on to the idea of love, even though so little of it had been shown to her in later years. Mary will be forever remembered as “Bloody Mary,” though she was so much more than that.
ELIZABETH I
My thoughts on Elizabeth are many, so I’ll try to par it down to actual sections from this book and not go on too many tangents.
As a child, I think that Elizabeth suffered the worst of Henry VIII’s children. Edward, as a prince, was always loved. Mary, though treated poorly in later years, at least knew where she stood and enjoyed a great many years as the king’s only child. Elizabeth never had either of these luxuries afforded her. Neglected after the execution of her mother, her governess often had to beg the king for money for new clothes for the growing child. In her young years, she did not grow up basking in the king’s love and affection, and indeed, when he did see her again, he often would blow hot and cold – a lot to handle for a young child! This being considered, I find it fascinating that she grew up in awe of his power and, as queen, often compared herself favorably to him instead of thinking him a tyrant. Perhaps she did privately think this, and used the “king’s daughter” image simply to bolster her own standing once she came to the throne, but she seems to have generally revered him. That she never mentioned Anne Boleyn is curious. Though asking about her would bring up unpleasant sentiments in many, therefore, making it very intelligent that she did not mention her, I have to wonder what her private thoughts were of her mother, and what she believed and did not believe. That she wore a portrait of her mother inside a clasp is telling that her opinion must have been somewhat sympathetic, but you always have to wonder what went through this enigmatic woman’s head.
The book describes Edward as a “cold prig” in one part, which I found interesting given that the warmth between himself and Elizabeth (who he called his “Sweet Sister Temperance”) does not seem at all feigned. Their shared faith was probably as much of a help to them as it hindered their relationship with Mary. This brings up the questions - did Elizabeth harbor any sympathy for Mary at all? Certainly, as a sovereign it is mentioned that she did not brook criticism of her sister as a fellow sovereign, but on a personal level, did she ever feel that Mary was a more sympathetic character? Her mother was ripped from her at a point where she needed her the most, and she was forced to serve Elizabeth.
When she swore her allegiance to Mary, I wonder if she had any idea how much suffering she (and others) were in store for. If nothing else, Mary was a fervent Catholic, which had always been obvious. Did Elizabeth expect to come out of Mary’s reign alive?
One of the things I have always wondered about, and that now has been put (mostly) to rest with modern science, is the mystery of Amy Robsart, wife of Elizabeth’s favorite, Robert Dudley. Certainly one of the greatest upsets of Elizabeth’s reign was whether or not Amy had been murdered, and if she had, if the Queen had had anything to do with it. Though suspicious to me that Amy had just happened to dismiss the servants to go to a local fair that day, leaving her alone in the home, I had always thought it most likely that Amy had fallen down the stairs and died accidentally. Suicide had never seemed likely, just because, really, who would choose suicide by falling down the stairs? That’s leaving too much to chance. Hanging or poison would probably have been used if that were the case. And murder? As rash as Robert Dudley was, I couldn’t see him stooping to murder, especially considering that this was once a love match. Forget about Elizabeth’s involvement. As is evidenced in many parts of her life, her country came first, and neither Amy Robsart nor even her beloved Dudley were worth her kingdom.
Certainly, Elizabeth was a clever woman who knew what she wanted, and somehow managed to rein herself in. There always has been speculation as to whether she was really a “virgin queen” and that Waller seems to think that she and Dudley never consummated their relationship is fascinating. What a dance to be dancing for so many decades! And while this was going on, she had suitors left, right and center, all of whom she managed to play against each other. Just brilliant on her part, and it kept the peace for a good period of time.
Another large chapter of her life was taken up by what to do with the Scots Queen, who was rumored to be more beautiful and intelligent than Elizabeth; of course, a woman as vain as Elizabeth couldn’t stand this. That these two never met and yet had such a complex relationship fascinates me. I understand Elizabeth’s hesitancy to sign the death warrant, and thereby setting a standard that monarchs could be done away with. I wonder if she was thinking of her mother and the ill-fated Catherine Howard as she signed Mary of Scot’s execution order?
I’ll admit that while I had read about the queen’s end before, I always have a hard time believing that her body was just left to rot for a period of time. Such an amazing woman who had accomplished so much for her country and herself personally, just abandoned at the last hour… How sad.
MARY II
I’ll admit that I think neither her nor her sister, Anne, got much treatment in this book at all. I knew almost nothing about them going into this, and I felt like I only knew little more going out. In any respect, what I came away with from her section is that here is a woman who just can’t win. It stuck out to me that while women were supposed to be loyal to their husbands once married, Mary was criticized for following her husband, because he was going against her father. Now that’s really an impossible situation, isn’t it? No matter whose “side” she chose, she was bound to be damned for it.
While it was the norm at the time for women to be subservient to their husbands, I feel that, as queen, Mary should have stepped up her game, so to speak. That she was so deferential to him irritates me, as even Mary I, who married Philip of Spain against her country’s wishes, refused to allow him to meddle too much in government issues. She was the Queen of England, and he was a foreigner to the people, much as Mary II’s William was to the English.
ANNE
Wow… Taking the throne after so much adversity and personal troubles. Anne was definitely a strong woman.
VICTORIA
As much as I want to like Victoria, I just couldn't. I'll admit that the only side of her I had ever seen was the queen, and not the person. Certainly she had some admirable traits, but I find her obsession with her husband and anti-woman's rights opinions startling and unsettling.
ELIZABETH II
For such a long reign, there is so little information available! I must say that I am not particularly thrilled with the light they cast on Diana - no, she wasn't a saint, but she did a lot more good in world than most people do, and other sources I have read frequently mention her being quite ill treated by the royal family.
Her early years were of particular interest to me, as I previously knew very little about them. That she was so isolated from others may speak to some later situations and attitudes of hers.
The queen is still going strong and has outlived many others!
As a whole, I really enjoyed reading this book. I will admit that while I've read numerous accounts of Mary I and Elizabeth I, I haven't read as much about the other queens. While I found that those two and Victoria have the most information tucked into them, I'll leave you with my thoughts on each section of the reigning woman.
MARY I:
As others have pointed out, Chapuys is an extremely biased source, therefore, taking his word on Anne Boleyn might not be the wisest idea. Chapuys was staunchly in the Catherine of Aragon camp, making him a natural enemy of Anne Boleyn. Taking his word as fact in some of these accounts irritated me a bit, because while Anne was no angel, she most certainly wasn't the devil Chapuys makes her out to be. In some instances, Chapuys has been known to repeat slander that we know not to be true, simply because it was damaging to Anne. Anyway, back to Anne - yes, she was not very kind to Mary, making her serve as Elizabeth's lady-in-waiting. Yes, she demanded that Mary acknowledge her as queen above her own mother. However, Anne had also offered to intercede with the king (who, let's not forget, had the power to stop all of this if he really was so inclined) if only Mary would do such. Though Anne just happened to be the second wife, and therefore, the one whose children would supplant Mary at the time, I can't see Anne herself being the root of all the trouble. Let's look to Jane Seymour, the third wife who came from quite an ambitious family. Can we really believe that Jane, and especially Jane's own family, wouldn't have, in the same circumstances, pressured Mary to accept Jane as queen above Catherine? The only reason Mary ends up not having to choose between Catherine and Jane is because Catherine is already dead by the time Jane is made Henry's third wife.
Moving on, because I can get quite heated about the treatment of Anne Boleyn in that section, we get to Mary's "attempt" at escape. To be truthful, I don't think she really wanted to leave the country, no matter what others say. Her mind wasn't made up one way or the other, and by hesitating, she sealed her own fate. (though she might think of that as God's way of telling her it wasn't to be).
Moving on to her relationship with her siblings, I was surprised, and slightly amused to find Edward described as a "cold prig". Mary's volatile relationship with Elizabeth is well known, though I wonder if she really believed that Elizabeth was guilty of plotting against her, or if she let her hatred of Anne Boleyn color her opinion of Elizabeth. Certainly, the matter of religion played quite heavily here, as Mary was a most devoted Catholic, but I have to wonder if deep in her heart, Mary really believed Elizabeth to be guilty of anything other than not being Catholic. Some of the “evidence” provided against Elizabeth is quite obviously fabricated by people wishing to save themselves, or people wishing to suck up to Mary and feed her information. Elizabeth was a very clever woman and Mary knew it, which makes me wonder if Mary knew the evidence was false and just wanted to believe it for the sake of… Whatever.
All in all, Mary showed herself to be a brave, determined woman in the face of much adversity. Though she may not have been popular as a queen, I think as a person, she had many admirable qualities. With the threat of execution hanging over her head in her early years, she managed to hold fast to her beliefs, both religious and personal. I genuinely believe the accounts that call her merciful and kind as a queen. Though often remembered as “Bloody Mary” we forget that her father, Henry VIII, also had people put to death for religion reasons. (namely, refusing to acknowledge him as Supreme Head of the Church). Though Mary was unmovable on the subject of religion, it is quite probable that she was doing what she sincerely thought would be in the best interest of her people, not out of spite or malice. Mary wanted to “save” her people, though she didn’t go about in a way that is excusable. She held on to the idea of love, even though so little of it had been shown to her in later years. Mary will be forever remembered as “Bloody Mary,” though she was so much more than that.
ELIZABETH I
My thoughts on Elizabeth are many, so I’ll try to par it down to actual sections from this book and not go on too many tangents.
As a child, I think that Elizabeth suffered the worst of Henry VIII’s children. Edward, as a prince, was always loved. Mary, though treated poorly in later years, at least knew where she stood and enjoyed a great many years as the king’s only child. Elizabeth never had either of these luxuries afforded her. Neglected after the execution of her mother, her governess often had to beg the king for money for new clothes for the growing child. In her young years, she did not grow up basking in the king’s love and affection, and indeed, when he did see her again, he often would blow hot and cold – a lot to handle for a young child! This being considered, I find it fascinating that she grew up in awe of his power and, as queen, often compared herself favorably to him instead of thinking him a tyrant. Perhaps she did privately think this, and used the “king’s daughter” image simply to bolster her own standing once she came to the throne, but she seems to have generally revered him. That she never mentioned Anne Boleyn is curious. Though asking about her would bring up unpleasant sentiments in many, therefore, making it very intelligent that she did not mention her, I have to wonder what her private thoughts were of her mother, and what she believed and did not believe. That she wore a portrait of her mother inside a clasp is telling that her opinion must have been somewhat sympathetic, but you always have to wonder what went through this enigmatic woman’s head.
The book describes Edward as a “cold prig” in one part, which I found interesting given that the warmth between himself and Elizabeth (who he called his “Sweet Sister Temperance”) does not seem at all feigned. Their shared faith was probably as much of a help to them as it hindered their relationship with Mary. This brings up the questions - did Elizabeth harbor any sympathy for Mary at all? Certainly, as a sovereign it is mentioned that she did not brook criticism of her sister as a fellow sovereign, but on a personal level, did she ever feel that Mary was a more sympathetic character? Her mother was ripped from her at a point where she needed her the most, and she was forced to serve Elizabeth.
When she swore her allegiance to Mary, I wonder if she had any idea how much suffering she (and others) were in store for. If nothing else, Mary was a fervent Catholic, which had always been obvious. Did Elizabeth expect to come out of Mary’s reign alive?
One of the things I have always wondered about, and that now has been put (mostly) to rest with modern science, is the mystery of Amy Robsart, wife of Elizabeth’s favorite, Robert Dudley. Certainly one of the greatest upsets of Elizabeth’s reign was whether or not Amy had been murdered, and if she had, if the Queen had had anything to do with it. Though suspicious to me that Amy had just happened to dismiss the servants to go to a local fair that day, leaving her alone in the home, I had always thought it most likely that Amy had fallen down the stairs and died accidentally. Suicide had never seemed likely, just because, really, who would choose suicide by falling down the stairs? That’s leaving too much to chance. Hanging or poison would probably have been used if that were the case. And murder? As rash as Robert Dudley was, I couldn’t see him stooping to murder, especially considering that this was once a love match. Forget about Elizabeth’s involvement. As is evidenced in many parts of her life, her country came first, and neither Amy Robsart nor even her beloved Dudley were worth her kingdom.
Certainly, Elizabeth was a clever woman who knew what she wanted, and somehow managed to rein herself in. There always has been speculation as to whether she was really a “virgin queen” and that Waller seems to think that she and Dudley never consummated their relationship is fascinating. What a dance to be dancing for so many decades! And while this was going on, she had suitors left, right and center, all of whom she managed to play against each other. Just brilliant on her part, and it kept the peace for a good period of time.
Another large chapter of her life was taken up by what to do with the Scots Queen, who was rumored to be more beautiful and intelligent than Elizabeth; of course, a woman as vain as Elizabeth couldn’t stand this. That these two never met and yet had such a complex relationship fascinates me. I understand Elizabeth’s hesitancy to sign the death warrant, and thereby setting a standard that monarchs could be done away with. I wonder if she was thinking of her mother and the ill-fated Catherine Howard as she signed Mary of Scot’s execution order?
I’ll admit that while I had read about the queen’s end before, I always have a hard time believing that her body was just left to rot for a period of time. Such an amazing woman who had accomplished so much for her country and herself personally, just abandoned at the last hour… How sad.
MARY II
I’ll admit that I think neither her nor her sister, Anne, got much treatment in this book at all. I knew almost nothing about them going into this, and I felt like I only knew little more going out. In any respect, what I came away with from her section is that here is a woman who just can’t win. It stuck out to me that while women were supposed to be loyal to their husbands once married, Mary was criticized for following her husband, because he was going against her father. Now that’s really an impossible situation, isn’t it? No matter whose “side” she chose, she was bound to be damned for it.
While it was the norm at the time for women to be subservient to their husbands, I feel that, as queen, Mary should have stepped up her game, so to speak. That she was so deferential to him irritates me, as even Mary I, who married Philip of Spain against her country’s wishes, refused to allow him to meddle too much in government issues. She was the Queen of England, and he was a foreigner to the people, much as Mary II’s William was to the English.
ANNE
Wow… Taking the throne after so much adversity and personal troubles. Anne was definitely a strong woman.
VICTORIA
As much as I want to like Victoria, I just couldn't. I'll admit that the only side of her I had ever seen was the queen, and not the person. Certainly she had some admirable traits, but I find her obsession with her husband and anti-woman's rights opinions startling and unsettling.
ELIZABETH II
For such a long reign, there is so little information available! I must say that I am not particularly thrilled with the light they cast on Diana - no, she wasn't a saint, but she did a lot more good in world than most people do, and other sources I have read frequently mention her being quite ill treated by the royal family.
Her early years were of particular interest to me, as I previously knew very little about them. That she was so isolated from others may speak to some later situations and attitudes of hers.
The queen is still going strong and has outlived many others!
January 17, 2019
This was a book that came up as a Goodreads recommendation and I'm so glad that it did. I thought it was fantastic.
I have read a lot about monarchy over the years, particularly about Queen Anne and our two Queen Elizabeths, so I thought those chapters might just be a refresher for me but Waller included so much information that I never knew before. She has a lovely way of writing that is conversational. It's not dry and it holds the readers attention throughout.
Whilst there are some comparisons made between the Queens, particularly in the opening chapter and the conclusion, it is very much a set of individual studies of each Queen. It is clear though just how different each of the Queens lives were. We learn not only about them as individuals but also how England has changed over the years. We start with Mary I, an absolute monarch, to Elizabeth II who is sovereign over a democratically elected government so it's fascinating to see how much our country has changed.
Waller really tries to understand the personalities of each Queen and doesn't hold back in praising their strengths but also their weaknesses and mistakes. I really couldn't put it down.
It is an excellent starting point for people wanting to study any of the six queens.
I have read a lot about monarchy over the years, particularly about Queen Anne and our two Queen Elizabeths, so I thought those chapters might just be a refresher for me but Waller included so much information that I never knew before. She has a lovely way of writing that is conversational. It's not dry and it holds the readers attention throughout.
Whilst there are some comparisons made between the Queens, particularly in the opening chapter and the conclusion, it is very much a set of individual studies of each Queen. It is clear though just how different each of the Queens lives were. We learn not only about them as individuals but also how England has changed over the years. We start with Mary I, an absolute monarch, to Elizabeth II who is sovereign over a democratically elected government so it's fascinating to see how much our country has changed.
Waller really tries to understand the personalities of each Queen and doesn't hold back in praising their strengths but also their weaknesses and mistakes. I really couldn't put it down.
It is an excellent starting point for people wanting to study any of the six queens.
August 9, 2012
I know this is more of a summary than a review, but I wanted to include details that I often forget shortly after reading a book. This book was very informative, and it was interesting to see each Queen's strengths and weaknesses and how they played out. Not being English, it was difficult to follow the genealogies and know what certain terms meant/implied (dukes, counts, earls) especially when people were given new titles of rank when they married or accomplished something great. Reading this book made me glad I live in this century in the United States where women are treated with more equality and where success in life isn't determined by how many male children you have ( esp since I have 4 wonderful daughters). The author doesn't emphasize historical events, but the role gender played. The author seems to sympathize with Mary Tudor-- her father Henry VIII rejected her bc of her not bring a male heir and constantly threatened to kill her, and separated her from her mother Catherine with whom she was very close (sounds like she may have attachment issues). The author asserts that the 400 people martyred for their Protestant faith were much fewer than died in persecutions in other countries at that time. The author assets that Fox's Book of Martyrs was a propaganda tool of the Protestants filled with errors used to discredit the Catholics. That book has been revered in the christian circles i run in, so it was surprising to see it criticized. Mary didn't read people well and relied on her position as Queen rather than personal influence. In contrast, Elizabeth knew how to work the crowds and continually put herself in front of them to garner support, perhaps bc of the difficulties she experienced in her younger days. As a child, she was considered a bastard bc of her father's divorce of Catherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn, was also rejected by her father bc of her sex, was probably abused, and then Imprisoned when her sister Mary reigned. She was highly educated, had her father's drive, and had great people skills. She never made rash decisions, knew when to compromise, and never allowed herself to be bullied. She seems to have been able to overcome her childhood difficulties in a way that Mary didn't. Mary II, daughter of James II, married William of Orange and moved to the Netherlands. Supporting her husband's faith and politics, she was considered a traitor to her catholic father. She was glad to share the reign in England w her husband, and enjoyed the domestic pursuits of gardening and charity work. She died young at 32, scorned by her father but adored by the people. With her sister Mary II, Anne was removed from her catholic family as a child and raised by Protestant clergy and was thoroughly indoctrinated against Catholicism. She married Prince George of Denmark,and left no living heirs despite 17 pregnancies. Despite her health difficulties, dull personality, and lack of education, she determinedly did what she thought was right, understood timing, and chose good men to lead. Bc of her mercy and compassion, she made few enemies and was looked upon as the mother of the English nation. Victoria grew up in England, of noble but poor parents, forced to live cheaply in the countryside and deliberately kept apart from her decadent Hanoverian relatives. Having been groomed by her uncle Leopold for the throne, she followed his advice about being above petty politics. Despite her position as constitutional monarch, she eagerly kept herself informed of parliamentary decisions and insisted on influencing those decisions. Having her marriage arranged since infancy, she married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and fell passionately in love w him, though she did keep him on a short leash financially. Having nine children who all survived childhood, her role gradually shifted to child rearing, while Albert exerted more influence as he became her personal adviser, confidante, secretary and minister. Despite her dowdy figure and wearing of bonnets vs crowns, the people embraced her motherly image. She visited wounded soldiers (Crimean war), was photographed and became a household image. Visiting his errant son, Prince Albert caught a chill and died. Victoria was unconsolable, yet lived another 40 years. Her close servant, John brown, seemed to be able to snap her out of her depression and was a lifelong friend and confidante, though gossip attributed more. He and Disraeli brought her out of retirement to become a queen-empress who reigned over an empire on which the sun never set. As England's political power decreased, the magic of monarchy seemed to increase. She was given a military funeral, and details were broadcast round the world. Elizabeth II was the daughter of Albert, whose older brother the Prince of Wales eventually gave up the throne to marry the American divorcee Mrs Simpson. Albert is the focus in the recent movie The King's Speech. Elizabeth loved horses and races and instituted those at Ascot. Being attractive, strong, and of good personality she was a propaganda hit for the British in WWII, not having been sent away to to Canada like many privileged children. She married Philip Mountbatten, whom she met prior to WWII and corresponded. The wedding was broadcast around the world, and she became an instant celebrity. Philip had given up a promising naval career to marry her, and was somewhat frustrated by his limited duties as her husband. Though she loved her people and always put their interests above her own, she kept a certain distance between herself and never stepped over the boundary between informality and familiarity. She had 3 healthy children, but put her duties as Queen above those of motherhood, some saying she neglected them. All three had rocky marriages that ended in divorce, which makes you wonder what the big deal was about Edward having to vacate the throne to marry Mrs. Simpson. Times had certainly changed, but she has been the rock that has preserved the monarchy despite its loss of political power. What amazing women these people were as they sought to rule in a man's world yet keep the feminine touch.
September 22, 2017
I liked this book even though I knew most of the Tudor era almost by heart.
I really liked that the author gave Mary I her just due and didn't just write her off as "Bloody" Mary the horrible queen of England. I also liked that she didn't sugar coat Elizabeth I and make her out to be a saint. Some of the Queens were not that interesting to me but I read about them anyway and learned a few things I didn't know especially about Queen Victoria.
For anyone who likes English history...I would recommend this book to them. However, I wouldn't give it to a first time reader of British history as it was kind of dry and in places did read like a textbook.
I really liked that the author gave Mary I her just due and didn't just write her off as "Bloody" Mary the horrible queen of England. I also liked that she didn't sugar coat Elizabeth I and make her out to be a saint. Some of the Queens were not that interesting to me but I read about them anyway and learned a few things I didn't know especially about Queen Victoria.
For anyone who likes English history...I would recommend this book to them. However, I wouldn't give it to a first time reader of British history as it was kind of dry and in places did read like a textbook.
June 13, 2017
I knew a bit about Mary I, Elizabeth I, and Victoria, but I really appreciated the look into Mary II and Anne. Waller does a great job of giving the reader enough detail and historical context to understand the circumstances of each reign without it being overwhelming. It was exactly what I was looking for when I picked up the book.
November 17, 2024
I enjoyed the book but she had a couple of glaring mistakes in the section about Elizabeth II. The birth years of Andrew and Edward as well as the number of times Bertie asked Lady Elizabeth to marry him. The last chapters seemed slapdash as if the author was in a hurry. I did enjoy the book overall but it could have been edited in a few places.
May 4, 2017
Interesting chapters on the lesser known female sovereigns---Mary (of William and Mary) and Anne, her sister. Did not know much about them. Other queens covered were Elizabeth I, Mary Tudor, Victoria and Elizabeth II
June 5, 2021
It's a good book in the sense of small introductions to the 6 reigning queens. She overindulges on Victoria and Elizabeth I leaving you slightly dissatisfied with her approach to Anne and Elizabeth I.
April 5, 2022
A very broad overview of England’s independent queens, forming an engaging, if superficial, read. There are marked differences in how much detail the author gives to the queens, showing a clear favour to Elizabeth the first, and rather quickly running through Mary 2 and Anne.
January 8, 2018
A great overview of the six reigning Queens of England.
August 30, 2022
Some things were certainly glossed over. GB appears to have had strong women as Queen. The author was very critical of Elizabeth II in the final section.
July 4, 2025
very enjoyable book....
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews