In explicating the circumstances that surrounded the trial of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, Jayne Lewis paints a picture of two women caught in the cur-rents of political-religious controversy that pulled them and their contemporaries along in directions not always of their liking. Naturally, the book is about Mary, Queen of Scots, as the title suggests; however, this book is just as much about Elizabeth. Lewis contends that Mary’s trial was a foregone conclusion, a formal-ity to satisfy legal niceties. If that be the case, then the focus must move to those who conducted the trial, and the queen who allowed the trial, sentencing and execution to take place.
Mary Stuart’s role is one of the perennial favorite items for historians to pick at; was she the unscrupulous wicked and wanton woman who would stop at nothing to satisfy her desires, or was she the much-maligned frail martyr who tried her best for God, Roman Catholicism and Scotland? Did she plot the over-throw of Elizabeth, conspire for her murder, and plan a Catholic resurgence in England, or was she merely trying to secure her own safety and the restoration of her own personal rights as a crowned queen? Evidence is unclear – there is too little to be sure of some parts of her story and too much to be sure of other parts. Probably, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.
Whatever her culpability, she was Queen of Scotland in her own right, by birth; she was the dowager Queen of France; and she was, in many people’s view, either the legitimate queen of England (instead of Elizabeth), or at least was her legitimate heir. If Mary Stuart never stirred, never lifted a finger, never penned a letter, nor listened to an advisor, the mere conditions of who she was, and all that she embodied made her a formidable threat to Elizabeth Tudor. Fur-thermore, the record shows that Mary did not sit idle; she did entertain ambassa-dors and write letters, at least some of which probably involved plots to restore her to her former power.
Elizabeth, on the other hand, showed enormous tolerance and patience toward her problematic cousin. The Tudor dynasty was shaky both in terms of the legitimacy of its foundation and claim to power, and in terms of its future. Whatever her reasons for choosing spinsterhood, Elizabeth knew she was not going to produce a direct heir. She knew that England did not need a Catholic monarch to follow her, plunging the country back into heated religious contro-versy after all she had done to calm the turmoil. Elizabeth steered a steady course that fostered cooperation and a relative measure of tolerance (compared to Bloody Mary or Edward VI). Her policies allowed the country to grow strong as a maritime power, to engage in overseas trade and exploration, and to reap the financial benefits of long-term peace – foreign and domestic.
Harboring Mary Stuart, who was the focal point of Catholic and continental discontent, who was the rallying point for any malcontent within the kingdom and who showed every sign of causing as much or more trouble should Elizabeth predecease her, was a luxury that Elizabeth could not afford forever. To her credit, Elizabeth housed Mary, more or less comfortably, for almost two decades. Elizabeth’s motives were not entirely altruistic, since she knew that harming Mary would likely bring the wrath of Catholic France, Spain, the Empire and / or the Papacy. Beyond that, Elizabeth recognized that Mary was an anointed queen. She was reluctant to bring injury to a monarch, since doing so creates a danger-ous precedent and example. Elizabeth’s reign promoted the trappings of monar-chy and fostered respect, if not awe, of the person of the monarch. She knew that to damage the persona of her close kinswoman, a fellow monarch, were to tarnish her own status.
Lewis sees both Mary’s and Elizabeth’s actions through the lens of their similarities. They were each women in a world that was overwhelmingly male-oriented; they were each monarchs, proud and protective of their rights, privi-leges and position; and because they were both women and monarchs, they were isolated and unique. Lewis contends that both Mary and Elizabeth strove to maintain her respective power and position as a legitimate monarch, a female ruler over men; and neither of them was above using the stereotypical character-istics of her sex as a tool for that purpose. Lewis’s point is that, aside from being Catholic or Protestant, Scottish, French or English, politically clumsy and mis-guided or astute and apt, Mary and Elizabeth were, above all, women making their way in a world run by men.

Alex Hunnicutt ( )