Duchess: A Novel Of Sarah Churchill

Author: Susan Holloway Scott
Publish Date: August 2006
Letter Grade: A

I have a huge soft spot for the Brits, let's just get that out right now. Ever since that book on Elizabeth I, I've been a goner. Though, admittedly, my Brit tastes fall more to Tudor and Regency England, not so much Restoration England.

This could have something to do with reading too much about the English and their feelings about the Scots, which leads to my general dislike of having to read anything taking place in Scotland (save Gretna Green, naturally.) Though, Yoda's wife WAS queen of Scotland.

But she's half Norwegian. And I have no beef with Norway.

Well, none with Scotland, either, but I'm rambling.

Anyway. The point being, the Stuarts were originally the Scottish royal family, not the English one. Which bugged me a bit when reading a part where the buttheads are telling Anne that she's ENTIRELY English.

Hell, no, she wasn't. Her great-grandfather was definitely James VI of Scotland long before he was James I of England. They might be descended from Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's sister) but for pete's sake, how many English princesses were married north? She's Scottish. Or at least as Scottish as she is English.

This is more a beef with the characters than the author. But still.

At any rate, I enjoyed reading this book. My knowledge of the Stuarts hasn't extended much farther than Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587) and what I've read in 365: Your Date With History. The latter is also most of what I've known of John Churchill.

Sarah Churchill, nee Jennings, I knew from reading about Anne and Mary II in "British Kings and Queens," though I never made the connection to the Duke of Marlborough.

I'll say this: It was the first time I'd ever read about two women doing it. Two happily married women, no less. Though, I did find it a tad ironic that Sarah refused to sleep her way to power with men (having refused Churchill for years before he finally asked her to marry him) but did so with women, or at least with the then Princess of Denmark (Anne).

It's easy to forget that little excerpt in BKaQ about Anne under "Monachs that may have been homosexual" in the context of Sarah and John's happy, loving marriage. And Anne and Prince George's happy marriage.

The one thing I always managed to remeber about Anne was the fact that she had 17 pregnancies, of which 3 (according to the book, BKaQ isn't as helpful) managed to live past the first few hours/days, and none of whom lived to adulthood, though William, Duke of Gloucester, lived to the ripe ol' age of 11, and didn't even see his mother become queen.

The Stuarts were a sad bunch, I've decided. At least 3 of them were gay, which probably didn't help there procreating (see Mary II's barren-ness), only James VI/I and Charles I managed to have any sons at all that outlived them. Well, not including Charles II's children by his mistresses, but then you get ones like Monmouth who only got himself killed.

Reread that bit in 365 before it came up in the book, and I could have done without the prior knowledge.

Also prior knowledge made certain things a bit more sad: knowing that the Duchy of Marlborough kept on through Henrietta Churchill (thanks to genealogy sites on British Nobility) and NOT through Jack Churchill, or even Charles Churchill. Considering Sarah's opinion of her daughters, that is especially sad, in view of the family.

At any rate, I enjoyed the book. All the parts that annoyed me I knew were historically accurate, which is even MORE annoying, because there's no way to sugar-coat it. Queen Anne was a bitch to the woman who had been her closest friend since she was 8 years old, and to the greatest British general of all time (rivaling even Wellington, which in my book is high praise indeed. Though Nelson will always be my favorite one-armed admiral.) Foolish, foolish woman. And she put her trust and affections into a woman who, according to Scott's Afterword, looted the royal quarters and then disappeared.

Granted, this may or may not be true, we should keep in mind the source of such information (Sarah), but to my way of thinking, it seems to go with her character.

I also would have dearly loved to point out to the holier-than-thou Anglicans that their church was only formed because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his devoted wife for a strumpet (a strumpet of noble birth, but still a strumpet). And point out the shear hypocrisy of talking about freedom of religion while Catholic churches were being burned, and this being several decades after the Puritans left for the Americas in search of religious freedom. Religious freedom my ass.

Why this book gets an A: It's historically accurate, right down to the pure hypocrisy and stupidity of a long stream of powerful individuals, though it HAS given me a higher opinion of Charles II (though, I still feel bad for his wife, and didn't realize that she was there at his death, thanks to "Women Who Ruled" not giving that bit, only their last correspondence, which endeared him at least a little bit) and the love story between John and Sarah was sweet. And has made me consider reading the book on his many loves.

In the meantime, I'm going back to Shakespeare, having found "Ophelia." Maybe this will be the final push for me to finish Hamlet. ;) And then to Cold War America for "The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank" at last.