Any writer who spends a year or more in the company of an historical figure is liable to conclude that the subject has been wronged by posterity. Rehabilitation is more difficult if, as in the case of Mary Queen of Scots and her mother-in-law, Catherine de Medici, contemporaries seem to have concurred with the modern view of the pair as unhinged plotters. But John Guy and Leonie Frieda do their best. The case against Mary Queen of Scots is the weaker one, even though it once seemed strong enough to condemn her. The fledgling monarch lost her liberty in 1567, when she was accused of murdering her second husband. She spent two decades imprisoned in various castles-a boon to the tourism industry, but almost certainly an injustice. Through an ingenious reading of Mary's letters, John Guy proves much of the evidence against her to be forged, and reveals the identity of the forger: William Cecil, the ruthless adviser to Queen Elizabeth I of England.
展开▼
机译：在历史人物陪伴下度过一年或以上的任何作家都有可能得出结论，认为该主题已被后代所冤wrong。如果像苏格兰的玛丽女王（Mary Queen）和她的岳母凯瑟琳·德·美第奇（Catherine de Medici）那样，同时代人似乎同意这对夫妇是现代人，那是更困难的事情了。但是John Guy和Leonie Frieda尽了最大努力。苏格兰玛丽皇后区的案子比较弱小，尽管它曾经看起来足以谴责她。刚起步的君主在1567年被指控谋杀第二任丈夫时丧失了自由。她在监狱中度过了二十年，这对旅游业来说是一笔福音，但几乎可以肯定，这是不公正的。通过对玛丽的信件的精巧阅读，约翰·盖伊证明了许多反对她被伪造的证据，并揭示了伪造者的身份：威廉·塞西尔，英格兰女王伊丽莎白一世的无情顾问。
展开▼
