„Lesslyn wished the king would fall off his horse and onto his head.”

Déjà vu.

The truth-uncovering part of the story has progressed greatly. Janet is no longer in Fotheringhay, she is now in Edinburgh, and no longer listening to Margaret (Mary’s servant), but to Lessyn (Mary’s other servant). Curiously, the two servants’ narratives (if they can be called that, as they are both told in 3rd person) are so similar, that I keep forgetting Janet is talking to a different person. It’s not even the style of narration, necessarily, because, as already stated abundantly many times, the whole of the novel is in 3rd person, so there’s no need to alter the voice (except in dialogue). Either way, the stories don’t reveal anything at all about the people telling them, emotions, opinions, etc. (other than the laconic “she was scared”). There is no bias depending on the person, no personal take; the stories could have been told by absolutely anyone. Still the same format: chapters alternating between he “present” and the “past”.

The “past” is still narrated dryly, summarizing Mary’s life in a more or less straightforward way. I’m greatly relieved that there seem to be fewer characters, and the new ones are introduced more properly. The pace of the story has either decreased, or just focuses on important events, but the storyline is now much easier to follow. That, and the retold story is beginning to point toward what – as is already obvious – will be the final truth Janet uncovers, the innocence of Mary and unjustness of her execution. Namely, the reader learns of circumstances of Mary’s marriage to Lord Darnley, and his plan to assassinate her to gain the throne. The plan fails, of course, but Mary’s secretary, David Riccio, is slaughtered on the spot, as “red drops flew, spraying the assassins and covering everyone nearby”*. Again, a clear fascination with scenes of blood and gore.

I will not summarize the details of Mary’s biography, as they are known through history, and, the story being as confusing as it is, I would be afraid of mixing something up. Instead, I will spare my keyboard and point you towards a far more reliable source, where you can read ad nauseum as well as to your heart’s content about the tragic queen.

So, while the "past" is faithful to the time period, the "present" consists of Janet obsessively discussing Mary with everyone she encounters, despite being warned - while still at Fotheringhay - by a courtier with cruelly blue eyes to stop questioning Queen Elizabeth’s decision, or the consequences could be quite unpleasant. Her husband also tries to pour reason into her head, as he has no intention of getting arrested, but Janet will not listen, as she alone, as a woman, could see “the thin spots where the fabric [of the world] was weak and things didn’t make sense”**. After all, “Janet knew better”***!
And so it goes something like this:
-Janet, please stop asking questions about Mary, it’s unwise.
-Surely, husband.
***
-What! You innkeepers haven’t heard yet...?
***
-Janet, please stop asking questions about Mary, you’re going to get us arrested. We’re in Edinburgh now, and news travels fast to London.
-Oh, of course. I would never do anything to jeopardize our safety.
***
-So, about that Scottish queen...

And here, I have a sudden prophesy of the character development to follow! Janet’s husband will become mad and frustrated, and their relationship based on trust will shatter. He will become a tyrant in the family. Until the end, when Janet will miraculously solve the mystery, and all will be well again...

What really frustrates me is the one-dimensionality of the characters. I just wish that the book would reveal something about the personalities of the well-known historical figures, something that can’t be found in history books, or at least develop the main fictional characters really, really well. Unfortunately, Janet does little more than have nightmares of being beheaded and chat with friends or strangers in a manner that strikes me as completely contemporary, and therefore removed from the 16th-century time period. Indeed, I feel as though the author tries to make the characters artificially relatable to the modern reader, perhaps unfamiliar with or put off by old-fashioned conduct. On the other hand, the historical portion requires so much knowledge about the 16th century political scene, that I am no longer sure who the target audience is. On the whole, it is utterly confusing. What the author does is stay true to the traditional gender roles, but implant in the main characters a modern mentality. While human nature stays a constant, I’m sure you will agree with me in saying that mentality changes dramatically with changing times. Janet’s observations of the world and the relationship with her husband strike me at times as completely 20th- or 21st-century American. While Janet is, of course, obedient to her husband, they have an inside agreement of “society is, what it is, but we are both partners in this marriage”. Janet knows she is the more intelligent half, and so does he, though he never admits it. The interaction, the teasing, the mutual support, the “Janet, ‘tis one thing to speak this way to your husband, who loves and respects you, but there are others in the world who are not nearly so invested in your welfare”****... it’s hard to explain exactly, but the behavior of the fictional characters strikes a false note. That is not to say that there were no good, supportive relationships in those days, but the author simply tries to make the reader think, “amazing! They were not different from us at all!” rather than be able to relate to their nature while taking notice of the differences in society, relationships, etc.

I forgot to mention another major part of the “present” narrative: chuckling, which the characters do annoyingly often, undoubtedly for some imperative purpose.

Lastly, a hilarious 1971 costume drama about Mary, which is probably incomparably easier to follow than this book:






























*p.117
**p.86
***p.87
****p.4