Elizabeth's mother, Ann Boleyn has just been executed. Mary, her half sister, has come to visit to tell the toddler the news. At 3 years old, Elizabeth is surprisingly (and somewhat unbelievable) aware of what's going on, and understands what she's being told. And thus opens the story of Elizabeth's childhood.
We go from the time that Ann dies to Mary's death and Elizabeth's famous quote, "This is the Lord's doing, it is marvelous in our eyes" when she is proclaimed Queen of England.
There is so much information out there about this woman, that I find all the different opinions of her muddle in my brain and I get confused about what is fact and what is fiction. Weir, quite obviously, is a fan of Elizabeth. And does not portray her to have many, if any, flaws at all.
Which is ridiculous.
Elizabeth got in so much trouble throughout her youth I find it hard to believe that she wasn't actively guilty in some of it. The affair with Thomas Seymour, the Dowager Queen Catherine's husband, is shown as to be entirely his fault and she the innocent victim. Save for the fact that the author admits Elizabeth was more than likely infatuated with him.
At 13, of marriageable age by the times standards, Elizabeth would have, and should have, known better. Was Thomas Seymour scheming to have more influence in the realm? Sure. Definitely. He was clearly at fault. But Elizabeth was not blameless, and her later fame for flirtation would indicate that she was partly culpable, and deserved the stricture that she was given when the affair came to light.
The next ... all the protestant plots to put her on the throne during her sister's reign. Weir writes that Elizabeth had nothing to do with any of them, and was just the rallying point for the rebels and she had no part in planning. I. Don't. Know. I just don't believe it. Even in the novel she is actively planning her government should Mary die (when Mary died, for they start talking of it as a foregone conclusion).
So here's my big problem with the book ... the author wrote Elizabeth sort of as a hypocrit. Which I have no doubt that she was. She attended Mass to keep her sister appeased even though she pretty openly reviled the Catholic faith. She feigned illness when called to court to keep from being punished, and she openly manipulated pretty much any man that came into her path. Any person, for that matter.
But the part that bugs me, is that Elizabeth (in the novel) reads as a hypocrit but still believes herself to be innocent of all wrong doing. "I love the Queen!" but "She is a dreadful Queen, I hope one day to be Queen!" but "I would never threaten the Queen's reign!" but "I love and cultivate the love of the people I hope to one day rule!" but "I'm so shocked that they rally to me! I had no idea!"
What poppycock.
This was probably the other side of Philippa Gregory's version (Virgin Queen) which is sort of an ironic title since Gregory pretty openly thinks that Elizabeth was ... um ... loose with her morals. Weir on the other hand believes Elizabeth to have been a true virgin, dispite the escapades with Thomas Seymour. Wier thinks she's good and just, Gregory thinks she was petty and fickle.
The truth is probably somewhere closer to the middle.
The book, as fiction, was good up until the last 150 or so pages. It has never taken me so long to finish a book. It was as if all action ceased. And primarily that's because - it did. She was in the tower and under house arrest for the better part of Mary's reign, so there wasn't much of a story to tell except, "Woe is me, I love the Queen, but I hate the way she rules, and the people love me, but I did not act traiterously! No not me! Never! Hurry Cecil, devout protestant and known enemy of the throne, tell me what to do!" Over and over and over again.
On the whole, glad I read it, enjoyed the different point of view up until Elizabeth was in her 20s. Then, the virtuous act just got old. I can love Elizabeth I and still believe that she was flawed. And for all the animosity that Mary had toward Elizabeth, it stands to reason that Elizabeth harbored some herself. But not Weir's Elizabeth. But, to each his own.
If you like historical fiction on the Tudors, you should read this. It's well done. Despite my bickering with the author.
That's always the question isn't it--how much did she know and when?
ReplyDeleteI tend to think a bit as you do--she had to know what was going on with the Mary plots, but it was better for her to play the vapor-y woman. That's a tactic Elizabeth used all her life, from dealing with Mary to dealing with marriage proposals to dealing with Spain. I think that's part of what irritates me about Phillipa Gregory's writing--it makes me want to tell her, "Of course Elizabeth acted all weepy-woman--but it was a tactic that, in the time period she lived in, was pretty brilliant."
As for Thomas Seymour....I think he was a much more worldly man who seduced a young girl. That whole business was probably one of the few big mistakes Elizabeth made, but it seems like she learned from it.