logo
Wrong email address or username
Wrong email address or username
Incorrect verification code
back to top
Search tags: Elizabethan
Load new posts () and activity
Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review 2016-12-24 19:27
The Robsart Mystery
To Shield the Queen - Fiona Buckley

England, 1560

 

(To Shield the Queen is apparently the title of this novel in the US. It was originally published in the UK as The Robsart Mystery.)

 

The Queen, Elizabeth I, is in love. And the man she is in love with is the unpopular – and already married! – Robert Dudley. If somehow he were to get an anullment and Elizabeth married him and he assumed the role of pseudo-king, there could be civil war. Especially as Mary Stuart, ex-Queen of France by marriage and Queen of Scotland by right, is considered by many people to be the rightful Queen of England. She is the legitimate granddaughter of Henry VII of England, whereas Elizabeth, in the eyes of many, is illegitimate, a bastard, the daughter of Ann Boleyn, whose marriage to Henry VIII was never legal as he had not been granted an anullment of his previous marriage by the Pope.

 

But of course, the real point was that Mary was a Catholic, whereas Elizabeth was a Protestant. The civil war would be a religious war.

 

And then, in September 1560, Robert Dudley's wife Amy Robsart is found lying with a broken neck at the foot of the staircase in their house. Was it murder – as many suspect? Murder instigated by Dudley – or even by the Queen herself?

 

 

Enter a young sleuth, Ursula Blanchard, brought up Cinderella-style by her sadistic aunt and uncle, then widowed young after a runaway marriage, and now trying to support her daughter and herself in a very harsh world. Her mother had been one of Ann Boleyn's ladies-in-waiting, and had got herself pregnant and borne the illegitimate Ursula, then died. But now Ursula is offered a post at the court of Elizabeth, who shows a not unnatural sympathy with any who knew and loved her mother, as Ursula's mother had. They are in fact almost exactly the same age.

 

I won't tell you the story, but of course it is Ursula who unravels the mystery, and at the same time uncovers a widespread Catholic plot against the Queen – in which it turns out her new, sexy, half-French lover, Matthew de la Roche, is involved. Now where do her loyalties lie?

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
text 2016-12-06 04:20
Reading progress update: I've read 286 out of 403 pages.
Elizabeth: The Forgotten Years - John Guy

Wait, hang on. A king can declare bankruptcy?  How did I not know about this? This seems like the perfect fodder for an episode of History Bites. Unless it was in the sum up at the end of an episode. Did they do one on the Spanish armada? I can't remember.

 

The world needs less reality TV and more silly history shows. 

 

Anyway, reading on....

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review SPOILER ALERT! 2016-11-26 02:10
The Rise and Fall of a Conquerer
Tamburlaine - Christopher Marlowe,Stephen Marlowe

I was going to have a look at both of these plays as a whole, but it appears that both of these plays are in fact a ten act play divided into two parts. This seemed to also be something of a debate with some of Shakespeare's plays, however the ones that are in two, or three, parts (actually, there is only Henry IV in two parts, and Henry VI in three parts, and it could be argued that all of these plays form one continuous play from Richard II to Richard III) seem to have their own internal consistency, of which this play seems to lack. In some cases it could be argued that some of the acts are superfluous as it appears that they are simply a bunch of kings making a stand against Tamburlaine, claiming that their army is bigger than his army, and then getting resoundly defeated by Tamburlaine, and thus starting all over again.

 

However, it could be argued that both of these plays do have an internal consistency, with the first play looking at the rise of Tamburlaine's power, which concludes with him standing on top of his conquests claiming to be prepared to move out and conquer the rest of the world, and part two dealing with his demise, as he becomes more and more caught up in his own sense of pride and self worth that he steps over the line by burning a copy of the Alcoran, and making mockery of the Muslim god by claiming that if he existed, why did he allow Tamburlaine so many victories.

 

The play was based on a real person named Timur, and you can read about him here (on Wikipedia). Timur is probably not one of the best known of the conquers (unlike figures such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Genghis Khan) and that is probably because he did not pose mush of a threat to Europe. In fact his war against Bayezid the Turk, who was attacking the Balkans and other parts of Eastern Europe (though Constantinople was still in the hands of the Byzantines at the time), is probably why Timur is considered a popular figure in European History. The other thing about Timur (or Tamurlaine) was that he was from central Asia and was only attempting to follow in the footsteps of Genghis Kahn (of which he failed, when you consider the extent of Genghis Kahn's territory and Timur's territory). He was also seen as being responsible for basically returning Persia, and much of the Middle East, to the stone age, as well as pretty much wiping out most, if not all, of the Nestorian Church (though you must admit that the American adventures in the Middle East in recent times have also assisted in that task).

 

Anyway, this is a map of Timur's empire:

 

http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/Maps/Map-tamerlane1400.gif

 

and this is a picture of Timur himself:

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Tamerlan.jpg

 

 

It is interesting though how certain characters are seen differently under a different light. Here Tamurlaine is being painted in a light that is not all that bad, though we must also remember that Marlowe's version does not necessarily have Timur portrayed in the light of a hero, but rather as a conquerer that inevitably overstepped the natural boundaries, in relation to believing he was better than god. Also note that Marlowe uses the Alcoran as the means of his downfall as opposed to the Bible, despite Islam being considered an alien, and in some cases an enemy, culture to that of the Europeans. While this is a broad generalisation, remember that for a period of around four hundred years Europe were sending troops to the Middle East in an attempt to capture Jerusalem, and while the first couple were, to an extent, successful, they began to wane in popularity and effect as time drew on (probably because most of the capable fighting men had been killed off in the first couple of invasions, and also probably because the inhabitants of the Levant had become more prepared in the face of further crusades).

 

As for the play, and this is the case with many of the plays around this time, the story has been borrowed either from legend or history. Marlowe is doing the same thing that Shakespeare would go on to do with his great tragedies: take a little known character and little known story and turn it into a great play. Notice that it is Hamlet and the Scottish Play that are his most famous, and while they are based upon historical characters and events, they are such minor occurrences that most of us would not realise that these plays have actually been inspired by true stories (in the Hollywood sense of the phrase, of course).

 

The Ascension of an Emperor (Part 1)

This first part documents the rise of Tamburlaine from a simple goatherd from the plains of Scythia to becoming the emperor of the Middle East. The play opens with the king of Persia being declared Emperor after his army had just sacked India, however one of the reasons for this is because Tamburlaine was a part of his army. However Tamburlaine, who is a cunning general, ends up turning on the emperor of Persia and defeating him and taking his place. However, he is not satisfied at simply taking Persia and moves west to capture Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Arabia. The play then ends with him standing victorious, but looking further West with the dream of conquering and becoming Emperor of Europe.

 

The thing that I remembered about this play is that there are scenes (I think about two acts worth) where the emperor of Turkey is being carted around in a cage, as if he were an animal. However, I suspect that there is some idea behind this in that what Tamburlaine represents is a reversal. He is a goatherd become emperor, and the other kings, the ones that have arrayed against him, as they are defeated the situation is reversed so that they go from being emperors to little more than animals. In fact, in once scene we have the emperor of Turkey bash himself to death against the cage, and another scene has a king commit suicide at the fear of going from a powerful monarch to a prisoner.

 

We see this even in our world as well, such as the suicides that occur when there is a stockmarket crash and a billionaire is turned into a destitute. This is the idea of the bankers throwing themselves out of windows in 1929 because they had lost all of their money, or the German millionaire who threw himself in front of a train because he could not handle the idea of living penniless. In a way it goes to show how much of an idea wealth and power can being when somebody will actually commit suicide when that idol deserts them, and in fact when they realise that all of their hopes and dreams were built on nothing more than shifting sands.

 

The Folly of Pride (Part 2)

I have noticed that there seems to be a lot less reviews of this play than there are of the first one – actually on Goodreads there is only one. Maybe it is because most people either read the two plays as a unity, or maybe they did read both plays, but if they wrote a review, they would have simply written it on the first one. This I can understand because it seems that there is little difference between the two plays with the exception of one act, that being act 1 in the first play (where Tamburlaine first comes onto the scene) and act 5 in the second play (where Tamburlaine finally takes one step two far and ends up dying of a disease).

 

The reason I say that is because the first play seems to, after the first act, simply have another group of kings appear making statements as to how their army is superior to Tamburlaine, and then they go to war with Tamburlaine and end up losing, and the kings are either captured and reduced to animals, or they end up killing themselves so as to retain at least some form of self respect (in the Ancient World, the act of suicide was seen as an honourable action, especially if it was a choice between poverty, imprisonment, or death – which in many cases is probably still the same today), and then it repeats itself in the next act.

 

A part of me was hoping to see that what this play encompassed was Tamburlaine's fall, but instead it seemed to have him becoming more powerful and, to put it bluntly, more cocky. In this play we have a number of kings who are defeated in battle, and by the end of the play are pulling Tamburlaine's carriage as if they were horses. Also it seems that we have Tamburlaine extending his kingdon into Egypt, the Levant, and Turkey, and even crossing into Greece and the Balkans, however, near the end of the play, he suddenly decides to turn around and make a path towards Babylon.

 

This I found rather odd because one would have expected that if he had been conquering the lands off to the west, why would he leave a fortress in the middle of his empire undefeated. Most, if not all, generals worth their salt would at least attempt to make an alliance with them, but would not leave them standing because capturing it would have been a little too hard. This was the case with Tyre and Alexander the Great, and as it turned out, capturing Tyre was not all that difficult anyway, despite the fact that it had been moved onto an island just off shore after Nebucadnezzar had successfully defeated them about three to four hundred years earlier.

 

However, as I have suggested before, and will continue to suggest, and that is that this play is, to an extent, about the fall of Tamburlaine, despite the fact that most of this occurs in the last act. Here he has finally captured Babylon and is in the library ordering the books be burnt and he is brought a copy of the Koran (written in this play as Alcoran). When presented with the book Tamburlaine mocks the religion upon which it is based, claiming that if Allah had any power whatsoever then he would have intervened and prevented Tamburlaine from conquering all of the said territory (despite the fact that the real Tamburlaine was actually a Muslim and this event would probably not have happened).

 

It is interesting that Marlowe takes this approach, namely having Tamburlaine mocking a god and the having the said god step out and demonstrating his power by inflicting Tamburlaine with a disease. It is true that the Bible says 'God shall not be mocked' but we see a lot of Bible burning and god mocking in our society (at least towards Christianity) and I must admit that we do get the same statements directed against Islam, and we do not see hordes of god mockers succumbing to disease, though I must admit that in the end everybody dies.

 

I guess the idea that comes out here is how, in many cases, people like Tamburlaine will, in many cases, end up overreaching and becoming overconfident in their abilities. We see that at the end of the first play where Tamburlaine had already dreamed of taking over the world, and at the end of this play, as he lies on his deathbed, looks at what he hasn't conquered, and then anoints his son to continue where he left off. It is interesting how when we review our lives, many of us look at what we have not accomplished, and actually forget what we have accomplished, and regret what we haven't done rather than look at what we have done.

 

Source: www.goodreads.com/review/show/818912908
Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review 2016-06-29 21:10
Children's Review: If You Were Me and Lived In...Elizabethan England
If You Were Me and Lived in... Elizabethan England (An Introduction to Civilizations Throughout Time) (Volume 3) - Paula Tabor,Carole P. Roman

We received this book to give an honest review.

 

I think K was really impressed with this book as he was very interested in the pictures and what the people were eating. He found it very cool that no one drank water because he doesn't like to drink water. Which I had to explain that sometimes there were nasty things in the water that could make people sick as we discussed how people threw out their waste and what not just into the streets. 

After reading the book and learning different things especially what people wore he believes he would not like to live back then as it doesn't seem fun and it seems hot. 

We even get to learn about different jobs and how much you could earn with those jobs. 

I have to say I really like learning a lot of interesting things with this book as I felt I learned and I am sure K learned something new. 

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review 2016-05-30 00:29
How To Be a Tudor by Ruth Goodman
How To Be A Tudor: A Dawn-to-Dusk Guide to Everyday Life - Ruth Goodman

All in all an enjoyable read that offered insights into the lives of the people from the Tudor era.  I did find some descriptions of tasks to be a bit hard to follow, but that didn't take too much away from my enjoyment of the book as a whole.

More posts
Your Dashboard view:
Need help?