The stolen crown Treachery, deceit and the death of the Tudor dynastry

Just when readers think they know everything about their favorite historical figure, along comes modern research to shake things up. Continuing her excellent analysis of the life of Queen Elizabeth I (Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I, 2023), eminent historian Borman turns her attention to the question that plagued the last Tudor monarch almost from the moment she became queen: Who would succeed her? Elizabeth's unconventional choice to remain unmarried (thus always available to prospective suitors) meant that she would have no natural heirs, giving rise to a panoply of potential claimants posturing and scheming for first place in her affections. Borman delves into the uncertainty created by Elizabeth's decisions, particularly affecting her Scottish cousins, Mary, Queen of Scots, and her son, James VI. The account of William Camden, whose writings form the basis of knowledge of Elizabeth's final days, has recently been determined to have been heavily amended, raising concerns about its validity. Borman details how those revisions may hold the key to understanding how precarious the transition from Tudor to Stuart actually was, with tantalizing implications. Highly recommended, Borman's fascinating report illustrates yet again the veracity of the adage that history is merely a fable agreed upon.

Historians have long considered the ascension of Elizabeth I's successor, James I, a relatively settled matter ahead of Elizabeth's death, but this meticulous account from historian Borman (Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I) suggests a thornier transition. Drawing on a fresh interpretation of royal correspondence, Borman argues that James stole the crown. She lays out her case via an exploration of several technocratic, religious, and interpersonal intrigues. These include the fact that royal succession had been "profoundly destabiliz" by Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII, who established that a sovereign could nominate their successor. Elizabeth chose to strategically keep her succession plans secret, effectively inciting a crew of claimants attempting to curry favor. Another quirk was a 14th-century law decreeing "those not born on English soil" couldn't inherit a title, which made James--then James VI of Scotland--a front-runner to those who believed in England's "suzerainty" over Scotland. Yet in a immersive close read of their letters, Borman illustrates how, much to James's chagrin, the two royals' relationship deteriorated over time, due to Elizabeth's dislike of James's misogyny, pro-Catholic policies, and desire for an equal English-Scottish union. The charge of "theft," however, is undermined by the fact that James had "no single, strong competitor" when Elizabeth died. Still, this makes for an enthralling and detailed window into royal family drama. (Nov.)

Detailing a watershed moment in English history. The Tudor family's reign in England lasted 118 years and saw five monarchs on the throne. When the last Tudor, Elizabeth I, died in 1603 without a direct heir, the Brits turned to James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England, uniting the kingdoms and beginning a new dynasty with the Stuarts. Those are the historical facts. In her latest history, Borman tells the fascinating story of palace intrigue, forgery, and other shenanigans behind those facts. After decades of waiting for Elizabeth to name her successor, and hundreds of letters between Elizabeth and James dancing around the issue, there was still no clear claim to the throne as Elizabeth lay dying. Council members reported that on her deathbed Elizabeth named James as her successor, quoting her as saying, "I'll have none but him." But James' hold on the throne was tenuous. His grandmother, Margaret, Henry VIII's sister, and her descendants were specifically excluded from the throne under Henry's will. James desperately wanted validation, not only for himself but for his son to succeed him. That validation came from historian William Camden's well-known biography of Elizabeth, which includes the story of the succession choice. New technology examining Camden's handwritten manuscript shows that key passages were pasted over and rewritten. "Elizabeth's last-gasp naming of James as her heir was a work of fiction," Borman writes. The manuscript was published in 1615 in Latin, suggesting that it was aimed at a limited audience, and the English language version was not published until 10 years later, two years after Camden's death, blurring the extent of his complicity in the treachery and deceit. An entertaining and highly readable story of a falsehood that has lasted 400 years. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.