do not worry about the accuracy of the movies, historians can not agree on who she really was

The story of Mary Queen of Scots, full of dramas and tragedies, has always been a favorite of filmmakers. Already in 1895, Thomas Edison had directed The Execution of Mary Stuart, a short film that was the first to use special effects to show Mary head trench. Since then, the doomed Scottish queen has been the subject of numerous biopics, ranging from Katharine Hepburn's Mary of Scotland (1936) to Josie Rourke's new film, Mary Queen of Scots, starring Saoirse Ronan and Mary.

When the news media cover dramas of the period, historians are always asked if they are accurate. Regarding the new film Rourke, the answer is no, of course not. Once again, the audience will go away thinking that she met Elizabeth I in person; Henry Stewart Lord Darnley, husband of Mary, and his Italian secretary, David Rizzio, have had a romantic relationship. and that the Scots of the 16th century were wild and uncultivated.

However, compared to his predecessors, Rourke's film is quite successful in badociating the story about Mary with a creative license. Mary's 1971 life film, starring Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson, brought the two queens together, not one, but twice. The 1936 film was generally criticized for its melodramatic depiction of Mary. And let's not even talk about the incredibly inaccurate treatment of Mary and the Anglo-Scottish relationship in Elizabeth I's biopics of 1998 and 2007, with Cate Blanchett.

Yet while it's always fun to score points on the historical scorecard in movies, it's harder to criticize filmmakers than many other historical events. The reality is that it is very problematic to think in terms of "truth" about Mary because, from the beginning, all the historical sources have polarized into two extremely different stories about the extent to which she has influenced the events of his disappearance.

Mary vs Mary

Everyone agrees that Mary returned to Scotland from France in 1561 to become the active ruler and that her reign began well and began to collapse after her marriage with her cousin Lord Darnley in 1565. The marriage quickly collapsed and Darnley was murdered by an explosion. years later.

Mary quickly married the Earl of Bothwell and was forced to abdicate by noble rivals who opposed it being so closely related to the throne. She ended up in prison before escaping to England in 1568, where she was again imprisoned, largely because of the threat it posed to Elizabeth as rival of the throne. She remained in captivity until her execution in 1587.

The disagreement is whether Mary was essentially an irreproachable victim or a co-conspirator. Did she have a role in the death of Darnley, in collusion with his possible murderer Bothwell? Did she voluntarily marry Bothwell or was she actually forced because he had raped her? Was she really involved in Babington's plot against Elizabeth that resulted in her execution?

The two competing accounts arose from the moment Mary was forced to leave the throne in favor of her 13-month-old son, James VI. The intellectual and poet George Buchanan wrote a version, initially in his lugubrious tract of 1571 From Maria Regina Scotorum. He smeared her like a lascivious whore who collaborates with Bothwell in the murder of Darnley and helps her lover to seize the Scottish throne.

The story of the victim was created by Catholic writers such as John Leslie, Bishop of Ross, who was one of Mary's main agents during his captivity in English. Leslie's 1569 text celebrated his Catholic piety and condemned his withdrawal from the throne of Scotland as an act of great treason against the legitimate monarch of Stewart.

The same binary approach to Mary continues to this day. During the mid-seventeenth century civil wars, everyone compared her to her grandson Charles I. The royalists claimed that they were one and the other examples of how Ambitious opponents had rejected the legitimate monarch. Pro-Republicans like John Milton responded that she was behind Charles' misleading and evasive nature and the moral warning of Stewart's tyranny.

In Victorian times, Mary's critics rely on the negative image of Buchanan, influenced to some extent by Presbyterian prejudices. The defenders apologized for Mary's failures because of her youth, her bad and her French upbringing that made her ill-equipped to govern Scotland. Modern historians have been far better at considering Mary in the context of her gender in a highly patriarchal society, but are still vehemently divided. The late Jenny Wormald received death threats for her fierce criticism in 1988; while John Guy closed the proceedings by strongly defending Marie in 2004.

Marie in public

We know less about the perceptions of the public of Mary through the centuries. Indeed, I am involved in a new two-year research project at the University of Glasgow, with more than 40 academics and curators, partly to better understand this. We know, for example, that in the 18th century, Mary was curiously absent from the propaganda of the Jacobites who were fighting to bring the Stewarts back to the British throne through Bonnie Prince Charlie. This could have been due to the fact that attempts to re-establish it in power had always failed.

We also know that Mary's imagery has always presented her as a martyr. What is believed to be authentic similarities with Mary was made during his youth, in France, especially during the 1559 White mourning (white veil) portraits mourning the death of his first husband, Francis II.

But while Mary was very sensitive to fashion and wore a vast array of colors and outfits – a fact well illustrated in the new film – she is almost always seen dressed as in the picture earlier in the year. article: a black dress with a widow's cap, very white necklace, closely tied hair and rosary and crucifix. This is derived from contemporary accounts of what she carried in captivity and during her execution. But, like Robert Burns' images, these details would remain the same over the years, while his face, size and shape had varied enormously.

Mary's films have also been consistent, portraying her primarily as a friendly and strong heroine. It may or may not be the true Mary; We'll never know. It is therefore unnecessary to worry about the historical accuracy of this Scottish icon. Take it as you find it and rest badured that Hollywood will soon decide to propose a new version for mbad consumption.