David Starkey

Chronicles the young queen's unlikely rise to power as the younger daughter of one of Henry VIII's many wives who was once imprisoned and nearly killed by her own half-sister.

The Struggle for the Throne

Elizabeth

An abused child, yet confident of her destiny to reign, a woman in a man's world, passionately sexual—though, as she maintained, a virgin—Elizabeth I is famed as England's most successful ruler. David Starkey's brilliant new biography concentrates on Elizabeth's formative years—from her birth in 1533 to her accession in 1558—and shows how the experiences of danger and adventure formed her remarkable character and shaped her opinions and beliefs. From princess and heir-apparent to bastardized and disinherited royal, accused traitor to head of the princely household, Elizabeth experienced every vicissitude of fortune and extreme of condition—and rose above it all to reign during a watershed moment in history. A uniquely absorbing tale of one young woman's turbulent, courageous, and seemingly impossible journey toward the throne, Elizabeth is the exhilarating story of the making of a queen.

I'm convinced that the ghost of Queen Elizabeth paid this author to write her in the most complimentary way possible, and that his long-lost uncle was one of the men that were burned at the stake by Queen Mary.

The way he wrote about Mary was kind of weird. I get that she literally killed hundreds of people, so she's bad, but he called her: a loser, mannish, dumpy, pudgy (the actual words that he used). Each time he used colorful language to describe her ugliness, I should've taken a shot, because by the end, I'd be drunk. He also described her barren status and used how her voice was deep like a man to make her even more unattractive. More focus on her mass executions would've been more sufficient because it wasn't really focused on. Just briefly.

Elizabeth, in contrast, was called Cinderella in comparison and Mary was her ugly stepsister (I'm not kidding, he actually said that).

This was okay, but I recognized that it was biased, because at the end, he briefly says that Elizabeth goes on to make England like Mary's England in her last years and kills people and has the Catholic's fleeing, but she had "empathy" and "sympathy" so she's not like Mary (lol).

And then he described the great Mary Queen of Scots as careless and how she "committed sins of the flesh" and was too busy straight banging and doing that for a long time to focus on politics. Like, sir, she wrote in code that was finally understood hundreds of years after her death (it was that difficult); I don't think she was that careless. Maybe that's my Scottish bias coming out.

Whatever. I tried to like Elizabeth, but for some reason this made me dislike her. I can't explain it.

Sarah Campbell

I'm convinced that the ghost of Queen Elizabeth paid this author to write her in the most complimentary way possible, and that his long-lost uncle was one of the men that were burned at the stake by Queen Mary.
The way he wrote about Mary was kind of weird. I get that she literally killed hundreds of people, so she's bad, but he called her: a loser, mannish, dumpy, pudgy (the actual words that he used). Each time he used colorful language to describe her ugliness, I should've taken a shot, because by the end, I'd be drunk. He also described her barren status and used how her voice was deep like a man to make her even more unattractive. More focus on her mass executions would've been more sufficient because it wasn't really focused on. Just briefly.
Elizabeth, in contrast, was called Cinderella in comparison and Mary was her ugly stepsister (I'm not kidding, he actually said that).
This was okay, but I recognized that it was biased, because at the end, he briefly says that Elizabeth goes on to make England like Mary's England in her last years and kills people and has the Catholic's fleeing, but she had "empathy" and "sympathy" so she's not like Mary (lol).
And then he described the great Mary Queen of Scots as careless and how she "committed sins of the flesh" and was too busy straight banging and doing that for a long time to focus on politics. Like, sir, she wrote in code that was finally understood hundreds of years after her death (it was that difficult); I don't think she was that careless. Maybe that's my Scottish bias coming out.
Whatever. I tried to like Elizabeth, but for some reason this made me dislike her. I can't explain it.

Jeni Enjaian

Once again, I wish I had reviewed this book right away instead of waiting three days. Oh well.
Having read one of Starkey's other works, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, I expected at least a decent piece of historiography. I got that and then some. I appreciated the familiarity with the topic that reading that previous book gave. I also appreciated the sense of "filling in the spaces" that this book gave to some of the events of the overlapping timelines.
While Starkey focused on Elizabeth's clear struggle for the throne (aka the time between her birth and coronation) the book was marvelous. It foundered a bit after Elizabeth's coronation when the struggle was less defined. The final few chapters dealt with Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Elizabethan Settlement. These chapters were the only parts of the books that I have a problem with. First, the introduction of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her struggle in Scotland and against Mary, are introduced quickly and discussed briefly. The topic deserves a much more indepth study than the one Starkey gave it. Second, Starkey's description of the struggle surrounding the Elizabethan settlement lacked the "tension" evident in the earlier parts of the book. Honestly, I don't really see that as part of her "struggle for the throne."
I hate that these two topics ended the book. It left a slightly sour taste in my mouth. Aside from that I really enjoyed this book and look forward to reading more of Starkey's works. Also, I do actually recommend this book. It is an excellent approach to a much written about topic.

Elizabeth The Struggle for the Throne

Reviews