With this novel of the infamous Stuarts, Jean Plaidy bounces around to different perspectives and prominent historical figures to tell the tale of how the Stuarts fell, rose, loved, and died. At the core of the novel is the Princess Anne and Sarah Churchill and their imbalanced relationship that stays constant despite all of the changes at court.

In this book, Anne's sister Mary is less of a character here and more of a figure, if that makes sense. You read about what happens to her, but you don't really get her perspective. That's reserved for her own book The Queen's Devotion. That said, you do get more of William's perspective in this, which is interesting. Personally, I don't think Plaidy's novels where she jumps from POV to POV is as strong as the ones where she focuses on an individual. The characters seem more like cardboard cutouts because she's bouncing around so much.

That said, you could cut the tension in this book with a knife. Sarah Churchill is formidable, and as easy as it is to hate her guts, you can't help but admire her, at the same time. Plaidy take some time to humanize her by showing her family side. Meanwhile, Anne is a sympathetic character as she matures throughout the book. It really does cover her teenage years up to her later years when she becomes queen. Their relationship is bizarre, but at this stage, it's clear that it's still symbiotic.

I recommend this book to history lovers. There's a lot to process, but it's easy to read. Plaidy has a gift that makes court intrigue fascinating and truly scary. There's definitely enough suspense in this book to keep you reading. ( )

This novel proved a challenge to get through.

We get way too much back story early on, focusing on Anne's (the future queen) friend Sarah Churchill. This bogs the narrative pace down and does nothing to move the story on. It reads like a dry report and includes an overuse of ‘had’.

The frequent use of ‘had’ in the past perfect tense is something all novelists should avoid. It reports on the scene as opposed to taking the reader into the action as it unfolds. The odd one is inevitable, but in this book it’s consistent, even though it’s easy to cut them down.

Below is an example of the passive 'had' and of the tedious way Sarah's back story destroys the narrative flow:

‘Sarah’s interests had been slightly diverted from Court for a while when her daughter Henrietta had been born; and recently there had been another daughter whom Sarah had had the foresight to christen Anne.’

On the same topic, the Earl of Mulgrave’s thoughts of marrying Anne not only read like a dry report, it's content is hard to believe:

‘If Charles had no legitimate child—and it seemed unlikely that he would—and James had no son, which also seemed a possibility, and Mary remained childless, well then it would be the Princess Anne’s turn.’

I stated it's hard to believe because it feels like the author is writing with hindsight, which she has done in several other novels. Ms Plaidy knew Anne became queen in reality, but would the real Earl of Mulgrave have thought such a thing at this stage? Highly unlikely.

People of the time couldn't know James would remain childless, and it's even more of a wild assumption to contemplate Mary not having a baby. Mary didn't, of course, but we know this; the people of the time didn't.

What's most notable it that Anne was only three years younger than Mary, so I find it ridiculous to suppose that anyone would assume that Anne would have her 'turn' in a period of plague and other diseases, plus the dangers of childbirth. Anne was frequently pregnant. We know with hindsight that she survived them all, but at the time, Anne's life was much less sure than Mary's. With only three years between them, why would you assume the (slightly) elder would die before the ever-pregnant younger?

This theme of people assuming Anne would without fail become queen is an annoying repetition throughout the book. For example, after Charles II’s death, Sarah tells her husband:

‘"John, do you understand that the day my plump Morley [Anne] mounts the throne I can rule this country?”’

And later Sarah tells Anne: ‘"When Mary dies then it should be your turn.”’

Again, why would she be certain that Mary would die first when she's only three years older than Anne?

One of this author's worse traits is 'telling', not showing''. For example, ‘Anne looked puzzled’, ‘Anne was clearly shaken’, ‘James was clearly anxious,’ and ‘Sarah was quite obviously angry’ all show a lack of imagination. All those mentioned above could easily be revised to 'show' the characters' emotions.

Even worse, the quote below is 'telling' to the point that it reads like a textbook:

‘Mary, angered by the pettiness of all this, refused to see them and Lord Lincoln, one of the Privy councillors, came bursting into her apartment, acting, as she said, like a madman, shouting at her, demanding this and that. She ordered him out; but weary of the ridiculous conflict agreed to make an appearance at the meeting.’

No drama, no connection with the characters, no vivid scene, no reader engagement.

No sense of place is another issue at times. This dialogue follows on from a dry and lengthy third-person narration. The reader has no idea where the characters are, whether they're sitting, standing, etc. Not well done at all:

‘He came to the Queen—his face set into lines of resignation.
“I came out of my retirement too quickly,” he told her.’

Later in the story, we have an overlong section of backstory about forger Robert Young, which reads like a textbook. This leads to a conversation with fellow prisoner Stephen Blackhead, but there’s no sense of place. Yes, they’re in prison, but the reader doesn’t see, hear, smell, or feel anything. It’s like voices floating in limbo. Passive prose throughout.

This later leads to more dull scenes. This quote is particularly passive and lacks imagination:

‘Blackhead thought hard and he mentioned a name and a town he knew. This was written down.’

Overlong sentences like this dry account should’ve been split up and revised to something more active and engaging:

‘James was a King who took his duties more seriously than his brother Charles had done; but he was incapable of understanding human nature and he completely lacked Charles’ ability to twist and turn himself out of trouble; James, in Rochester’s opinion, was a foolish man, and in this dangerous age a fool had very little hope of survival; and the Queen was an evil influence, because she was Catholic; he had hoped that James’s mistress Catherine Sedley would be able to detach the King from the Catholics, but this plan had failed and James had been reluctantly obliged to send Catherine to Ireland after bestowing on her the title of Lady Dorchester.’

Reported speech is another element that makes this novel passive and lackluster:

‘They expressed their concern at the Queen’s appearance and she replied that she believed the swelling to have little significance.’

The above would've been vivid if turned into dialogue (providing we had a sense of place).

Overall, this is a missed opportunity. The material for a gripping narrative is there, but the author treated this novel like a dry report.

Most scenes featuring William, Duke of Gloucester, are good, which is why I rate it two stars instead of one, but on the whole it's slow, boring, and a slog to get through.

Gloucester is, in my view, the best character by far. He's one of Anne's sons. Nearly all other characters are one-dimensional. I mean, why were Anne's many pregnancies glanced over? We don't feel how Anne feels when she loses child after child. Only her emotions for Gloucester are portrayed.

A little more focus on character development and a lot less focus on people predicting Anne becoming queen would've been welcome. Repeatedly emphasising how Charles, James, and Mary must die before it's 'Anne's turn' does not make for engaging reading.

Something about Jean Plaidy’s books keep me coming back for more. Perhaps it’s her obvious love for English and French history, which I share, that draws me back. I wish she’d focused less on turning out as greater quantity of novels as possible and concentrated more on quality writing. A novel like this one should be revised about 20 times, yet this at best feels like a fourth draft. ( )

Great book exploring the lives of Mary II and her sister Princess Anne and the dynamics of these two sisters. This book will engage you with both of them and you will get frustrated by Mary's complete submissiveness to her husband the majority of the time even though she was equal to him in her reign (when she didn't have to be she had the true claim). You will get equally annoyed at her sister Anne who is led by the nose by her domineering lady-in-waiting Sarah Churchill. The book ends with Princess Anne becoming Queen. This is the second to last book in the Stuart Saga. ( )

Another great book from Jean Plaidy. It isn't her best but its far from her worst. If you like historical fiction, I highly recommend Jean Plaidy whose books are finally coming back into print. ( )

sequel to 'the three crowns', this novel takes us from the marriage of Princess Anne, through the flight of her Catholic father, and the taking of the crown by her sister and brother-in-law, William and Mary. The political aspect of this era in history is made very human, as Plaidy focusses on the jealousies, plots and intrigues, caused largely by the endlessly ambitious Sarah Churchill, Anne's bosom companion. We read of Anne's tragic personal life, as all but one of her many pregnancies end in stillbirth or miscarriage- and the only survivor, a little boy with hydrocephalus, dies at about 11. The book ends with both Mary and William having died. Anne is now queen; Sarah Churchill, over confident of her status, is becoming quite contemptuous toward her. But is someone else waiting to be Anne's new friend? How will Anne be as sovreign? Read the next volume, 'the queen's favourites' ( )