#It's just that it's so FREQUENT with England/Scotland and I'm now exhausted

[the-busy-ghost]

imperiumsinefine said: I suspect that - like with Mary, or even James VI pre-1603 - a lot of the non-academic media surrounding them comes from a shallow understanding of their Scottish context; that they’re seen instead as part of an “English” narrative, and that’s why they’re the historical equivalent of Sugar-Free Irn Bru: it’s alright, but it’s missing a lot of integral stuff.

Ok first off I know I’m replying to this really late, but I was in the Research Zone when I first saw it and then kind of blanked but I still think it’s important and just yes, that.

I think the only one that sets Mary, Queen of Scots in the Scottish context that might be read popularly is Jenny Wormald’s book (and that because it was published in a series that demanded there be no footnotes, and I am still bitter over that). And the problem with that is that Wormald hated that Mary was overhyped, but this often came across as just bitter dismissal of Mary in deliberately controversial terms cos she wanted to spark debate, and so of course the main takeaway people always have from her book is like ‘how dare she, she was so mean about Mary!’ when the book was a) less about Mary as a person and more about Mary as a monarch, which she was not a strikingly successful example of, b) supposed to set Mary in a Scottish context, and c) to provide a different stance in the historiography. Which isn’t to say I agree with Wormald all the time (either about Mary, or other monarchs, notably James IV) but if her book is the only full-length biography that could be read by a popular audience because of the way it was packaged, then people also dismiss the Scottish context because they simply aren’t used to having the traditional narrative of Tragic Mary the Person challenged by ‘well let’s actually analyse how she impacted Scotland as a ruler and not how she became a legend in France and England’ and that usually doesn’t appeal to people who have traditionally viewed Mary as their’s country’s property for her romanticism (whether good or bad), whether they’re in Scotland, England, or France. Also they like to pit her against Elizabeth constantly, which I can understand, but is annoying after a while.

I don’t know as much about James VI but yeah again, the guy ruled in Scotland for thirty-six years (admittedly a good portion of that as a child but that’s still formative) before he succeeded to the English throne, which he sat on for sixteen years, but apparently it’s only deserving of a few chapters at the beginning of a three hundred page book, even though it would be vastly helpful to investigate his ruling style in both countries in equal depth- and more importantly, with a knowledge of the main debates going on in Scottish academia and something NEW to offer, like they do for England, rather than just narrating a series of events in a boring old way as if they’ve never been revealed before (they have, just not to the English-history-focused author apparently).

And for Margaret Tudor... well they’re right there’s not as much on her. But there is ENOUGH that three different popular biographies should not read identically. But it’s basically just a narrative of events, in the exact same way every time? I swear to god I have read the exact same ‘scene’- of Margaret being faced with James IV’s children in Stirling Castle- in all three books, and one novel, just with slightly different words (and slightly different levels of cheese)- though at least Maria Perry had the good graced to admit that we don’t KNOW that Margaret threw a ‘tantrum’ (come on people, even if she’d been upset that probably wouldn’t have been acceptable at that point as consort). I’m not saying this narrative couldn’t be accurate, it’s that we have no hard proof of it, and yet it’s always told in the exact same way, with similar buzzwords. Not to mention that clearly nobody bothered to count how many children were actually at Stirling at that point in time. That’s just one example, but why write a book if you just intend to parrot what’s come before you? Even popular biographies have to justify themselves a little on that front. And I think one major way to set about finding something new is to at least familiarise oneself with the Scottish context. But these books get published, and the authors say ‘yes she’s never talked about, but here’s a FRESH NEW TAKE’ and it... really isn’t that fresh. You just think it is because she’s only rarely mentioned in English history books, and I’m willing to bet you haven’t done your research as fully as would be advisable. But because she’s a Tudor and responsible through her bloodline for the Union of the Crowns, she’s come to the attention of English (and I mean those who know English history, not necessarily English by nation) popular writers who suddenly think they’re saying something all new, and yet only want to concentrate on the English implications of her story, which frankly have been done to death, and as for the Scottish parts they just parrot back something that they don’t have to worry about doing too much reading for.

Ok rant done, sorry for spamming your notifications by answering this late but I am just Tired.