Reviews

A Outra Rainha by Philippa Gregory

booksonawednesday's review against another edition

emotional tense slow-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Character
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? It's complicated
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

As per usual, Philippa Gregory delivers excellence in her writing. This book gives three perspectives: Bess, a prominent figure who rose up to marry an Earl and later host the Queen of Scots, George (the earl) and Mary Queen of Scots herself. None of the characters were particularly likeable: Bess was greedy, George was weak, Mary was arrogant. And yet the perspectives that they gave were unique and interesting, and I was still hooked throughout, despite the relatively slow pace. 

The ending of the book was rushed, due to the necessary time jump to show the conclusion of events between Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots. If a time jump was going to be used, I would have preferred to learn about Bess’s and George’s ends as well. 

As a side note, I’ve now completed Gregory’s Tudor and Plantagenet series, which I’ve thoroughly enjoyed. Nobody writes this time period as well as her, and the unique female perspectives that she brings to life are eye-opening. I probably preferred the earlier books in the chronology, as the War of the Roses is such a fascinating (and bloody) period of history, but I can see why the Tudor ones became so popular too. 

irishlassofcork's review against another edition

I only got about halfway through this but I may try again later.

dreamawakebooks's review against another edition

5.0

1568. The Virgin Queen Elizabeth I has ruled England for ten years, but refuses to name a successor, despite the rival claims that threaten her kingdom.

Bess of Hardwick, the new Countess of Shrewsbury, has secured her future with her fourth marriage to George Talbot. Ambitious and shrewd, Bess anticipates royal favour when she and the Earl are asked to give sanctuary to the fugitive Mary Queen of Scots.

But the Scottish queen rails against house arrest in a desolate castle and plots to regain her throne. The castle becomes the epicentre of intrigue against Elizabeth, the Earl blinded by admiration for the other queen. Even Bess’s own loyalty is thrown into question. If Elizabeth's spymaster William Cecil links the Talbots to the growing conspiracy to free Mary, they will all face the Tower…

'The Other Queen' is yet another brilliant novel by one of the masters of Historical Fiction. I have long been a fan of Gregory, and am re-reading her novels. The Other Queen is one of my personal favourites, if only because, following Henry Tudor, Mary Queen of Scots holds most sway with me. A beautiful, yet evil siren. Strong, self assured and cunning - her only downfall was underestimating the virgin queen and her loyal subjects.

As usual, Gregory has certainly done her research into the life and times of Mary, Bess and George, and her interpretation of their intertwining stories makes for engaging reading.

Well written, well presented and well researched.

Recommended for any fans of historical fiction.

hollyway's review against another edition

reflective slow-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Character
• Strong character development? It's complicated
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

This was so mediocre. I honestly don't mind some circular thinking in first person narration because that's human, but here it did not feel earned and it became so repetitive to the point where several entire chapters could have been cut without missing anything essential. It just felt really aimless, which makes sense given the nature of the plot, but it didn't feel like a result of the prolonged captivity the characters were experiencing but a lack of nuance within their inner experience. Each character had a strong voice but basically only one defining trait, making them feel more like caricatures than real people. Also this is not so much a writing issue as a personal one but oh my god, the way she presented the whole Mary-Bothwell thing was an ENORMOUS yikes. I have no idea if Mary's sentiments about him have any basis in evidence so I'm reserving judgement but nevertheless I physically cringed over certain lines.

With all that said, I'm still giving this 3 stars simply because I did enjoy the writing itself. The novel wasn't painfully bad, it just could have been so much better. I also thought Mary was slightly more nuanced and interesting than the other characters. I have a feeling that if we had only had her perspective it would have been a much more interesting book. I'm not willing to write off Philippa Gregory yet. I doubt she has written my favourite book ever, but I'm willing to bet she has something stronger than this. I won't be rushing out to grab more of her books but I'll be open to giving another one a shot if I see it at an op shop or something and I need something undemanding to read.

berenikeasteria's review against another edition

1.0

I groaned when I realised that Philippa Gregory had returned (why, oh why?!) to the formula she used in "The Boleyn Inheritance" of three different first person narrators. Three reasons why this format doesn't work for Gregory. One, she has a tendency to use this as a crutch so that she can "tell" rather than "show". Two, the voice of the three different narrators is indistinguishable and you only knew who was narrating which chapter because the chapter heading always said so. Three, in an effort to really distinguish the personalities of her three narrators from one another Gregory tends to hammer her readers over the head with certain points. From her first chapter, which was only five and a half pages long in paperback, Mary Queen of Scots repeats three times how she is a sacred anointed queen and a queen of three countries (Dowager Queen Consort of France, Queen Regnant of Scotland, and rightful heir to the throne of England). I could tell instantly that this is what she would be harping on about for most of the book. The three protagonists often express the exact same thoughts in concurrent chapters. Real people do not think exactly the same thoughts as each other.

Once again, Philippa Gregory lazily amalgamates Francis Walsingham into William Cecil, and the historical inaccuracies are ever a problem in Philippa Gregory's works. This is the third book in which Gregory promotes the idea that Elizabeth was in fact the daughter of Mark Smeaton, the other books being "The Queen's Fool" and "The Virgin's Lover". I overlooked this in the previous two books, but by this stage the level of her anti-Elizabeth bias is plain for all to see. As a historian, this is a glaring example of how Gregory picks out baseless slander to insert into her books over the facts. There are plenty of anachronisms too. Bess refers to the exploits of "Sir Francis Drake" in a chapter dated 1569, but Drake would not launch his first major enterprise to the Spanish Main in order to plunder Spanish treasure ships until 1572, and he wasn't even knighted until 1581 - in 1569 he was no more than an officer in the private fleet of his distant cousin John Hawkins and no one in Elizabeth's court would have heard of him. Bess also refers to "a fine Turkey carpet" which keeps popping up in the novel. Turkey, as a nation state, would not come into being for several centuries; in 1569 it was known to Elizabethan England as the Ottoman Empire. Mary's character talks about the Spanish raising an Armada for her in yet another chapter dated 1569, when in fact construction work did not commence on a planned Armada until 1586. Astonishing. Gregory even picks out details such as Mary making an embroidery of her new motto - "In my end is my beginning" - whilst with Bess at Tutbury Castle, when in fact Mary sewed this motto when she was newly arrived in England and at Carlisle.

A word on the resolution of the two plots as portrayed in the novel. The first plot, known as the Northern Rebellion, is resolved in the book by a simple loss of confidence from the Northern forces and a melting away of the threat. In fact, though Elizabeth struggled to raise an army at first, she was able to muster an initial force of 7000 men, and a supporting army of over 12,000, against the estimated 4600 of the rebels. The second plot, the Ridolfi plot, was actually uncovered by John Hawkins - aforementioned relative of Francis Drake - who gained the confidence of the Spanish ambassador to England and informed the government. Elizabeth was also sent a second notification about the plot from the Grand Duke of Tuscany, so far from being without friends in Europe as the novel proclaims she was, this was not the case at all. There was no Spanish help coming for Mary - they rejected the idea of sending support because of Mary's close ties to France. Philippa Gregory must have researched even these basic facts when writing the novel, so why does she falsify events? Why not go with actual events? The only reason for doing this that I can see is to underplay Elizabeth's support and popularity, overplay the support and popularity of Mary, and portray Elizabeth's situation as far more precarious than it was. It's repeatedly stated that the whole of the North is in support of Mary, but this was not the case at all. The Papal Bull mentioned in the novel, encouraging Elizabeth's Catholic subjects to rise up against her and assassinate her, was widely ignored by English Catholics, who enjoyed the prosperity brought by her moderate middle-way policies.

This ties in with the repeated nonsense notions in the novel that Elizabethan England was crawling with spies, that torture was used as a matter of course, and that justice and law meant nothing to "evil Cecil" and Elizabeth's other "unscrupulous, hard-hearted" advisors. Norfolk's trial is portrayed as little more than a show trial. The Protestants, embodied in Bess, are portrayed as nothing more than greedy money-grabbers concerned only with expensive houses and possessions. All of this seems simply a ploy to further vilify and discredit the historical figures that Philippa Gregory dislikes, whilst at the same time promoting those she has taken a liking to. I'll give you an example of this. Towards the end of the novel, Mary receives a crude drawing of herself as a mermaid and a comment on her scandalous love life. Mary and Bess then discuss how the drawing and other scandals going around about Mary were probably created and spread by Cecil's agents. I mention this in particular because I've seen exactly the artefact on which this little incident is based. It comes from Edinburgh in Scotland (not from England), and dates to the spring of 1567 (not December 1571), at the height of Mary's affair with Bothwell. The placard was one of many such plastered throughout Edinburgh at the time, and reflected a widespread unpopularity of Mary amongst her own people. The fact that Philippa Gregory uses this artefact and twists it in such a way clearly demonstrates her bias against Elizabeth and Cecil and the way she changes the facts in her novels for seemingly no other reason than her own biases.

Gregory's selection of time period feels odd, given that she could have chosen from many other far more interesting periods in Mary's life, such as the murder of Rizzio and Darnley followed by the rebellion of Mary's lords against her and Bothwell. The characterisations of the three narrators were uninteresting - George was dull and I rushed to get past his chapters, and I found it incredulous that he was so blinded by his love for Mary (incidentally I would really like to see the supposed wealth of evidence that Philippa Gregory claims in her author's note strongly suggests that George was in love with Mary). Bess was reduced to a constant cataloguing of her income and outcome, always at her account books and grumbling about Mary reducing them to paupers. I found it hard to like Mary when not only is she so false, but almost every single character falls under her charms and Gregory drastically overplays her popularity and prospects. An even worse sin - she makes Mary boring. Most of her thoughts and conversation are rehashed and vapid fare.

The book also severely lacks action. I thought something might happen when the three protagonists were forced to flee from the Northern Rebellion, and in fact the way they went on about how convinced they were that the rebels would catch them, I was anticipating an action scene or two... but then nothing. I don't think Philippa Gregory can write action. She dodged out of it in "The Constant Princess", she dodges out of it here, and come to think of it the only action sequence I can recall in any of her novels is the fall of Calais in "The Queen's Fool". Frankly, the book drags interminably and feels dull throughout. I didn't think much of George foreseeing Mary's death in an afterthought at the end - Gregory writes with far too much hindsight. Overall, the novel was simply monotone, failing to make an impact. It lacked passion, excitement or intrigue, and some of Gregory's readers have suggested that Gregory was by this time bored with the Tudors.

ethayden2's review against another edition

dark informative slow-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Plot
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

1.5

kolson687's review against another edition

2.0

2016 has been the year of Philippa Gregory books for me. I read 13 of the 14 books in the Plantagenet/Tudor series. I am definitely a fan of her writing and this was my least favorite of all her books. The characterizations of Bess, George and Mary herself fell flat for me. I did find the history of Mary Queen of Scots quite interesting but I would have liked a little more back story.

princesscai08's review against another edition

5.0

I love reading Phillipa Gregory. I know she isn't historically accurate all of the time but still a fantastic read.

jvsaucceda's review against another edition

4.0

I really enjoyed this book. Knowing how it all ends was only a fraction of the story, and Gregory does well to give you this version of the story. I have been fascinated with Mary Queen of Scots for a while and this was such a tender rendition of her journey to ruin. It was a slow start and each chapter a bit too repetitive, but the broken narrative definitely kept me engaged and left me wanting the story to go on when it was over.

karenks's review against another edition

dark emotional informative mysterious sad tense medium-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? A mix
• Strong character development? Yes
• Loveable characters? It's complicated
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0