The keyword for this book is succession. It provides valuable insight into how, since Henry VIII’s rule, the succession to the crown has been a complex and delicate issue. Here, the author argues that Queen Elizabeth never explicitly gave a name, thus making James I’s succession much less clear-cut. Elizabeth, on the other hand, forbade any debate on her succession and in her regular correspondence with James, she hinted at his succession. While at the same time, she spent considerable effort to eliminate or sideline all possible claimants to the throne. It is an interesting read with all the court intrigue and strategies occurring, albeit at times quite lengthy.

A thorough, detailed and fascinating read regarding the accession of James I, following the immensely successful reign of the last Tudor monarch, Elizabeth I. The many twists and turns and endless intrigues of the various courts are laid bare for us by Borman, with some surprising new ideas brought to light regarding the accession and the writing of records to justify James/Stuarts’ right to rule the English throne.
The wealth of detail and the accessible manner in which the information is shared enables the reader to immerse themselves in this engaging exploration of a fascinating and often dangerous period of English (and Scottish) history.
An absolute must for anyone thrilled by this time period.

This is an excellent book for tracing the various Acts of Succession and the claimants to the throne who could have been named Elizabeth’s heir. The author also does a great job of breaking down lineage and making familial connections much easier to digest. Elizabeth was quite cunning about not naming a successor, aware of the potential consequences, but she could also be quite cruel (in some cases, perhaps necessarily so), which I think is well-highlighted here. The story of the Grey sisters always saddens me, particularly poor little Mary.

The Stolen Crown is less about conspiracy and more simply the story of the political machinations and propaganda that allowed Elizabeth I to maintain undisputed power and aided in legitimizing James I’s claim to the throne. Rather retracing the entirety of Elizabeth and James’ reigns, this book highlights important events in a way that tie them back to the principal matter of succession. There are plenty of tidbits about well-known figures such as Phillip II of Spain and Mary, Queen of Scots, but there are also excellent opportunities to learn about lesser-known figures such as Arbella Stuart. This book was very well written, the style was engaging, and Borman has once more cemented me as a fan of her work!

I absolutely adore the Tudor dynasty and this book only fuelled my love for it even more! Elizabeth has and always will be a historical icon! This books delves deep and I absolutely enjoyed it!

If you're a Tudor history fan, The Stolen Crown is an absolute must-read. Tracy Borman delivers a gripping, dramatic, and totally absorbing account of the final days of the Tudor dynasty, with all the scheming, betrayal, and backstabbing you'd expect (and then some)!

What really stood out for me was how Borman shines a light on some lesser-known players in the Tudor court, giving a more complete picture of just how unstable and dangerous this period really was. It’s detailed but never dry, perfect for both longtime history buffs and curious newcomers.

Highly recommend if you're into royal intrigue, power struggles, or just love a juicy slice of history.

A new and interesting look into not only the dying days of Elizabeth I but the Stuart's that followed her.

I found the information about the letters Elizabeth and James exchanged for decades the most interesting part of this book by far. Elizabeth tried so hard to pass on wisdom to him in a way she never shared with any of her other possible heirs. This could be because James was male, far away and unable to be controlled like any of her other relatives. But it could also be because in her heart of hearts, she wanted him to follow her. They offer new context, challenging the accepted norm and putting a new spin on even the most famous quotes - I had never stopped to consider when James made a subtle reference to Anne Boleyn, that he did not call her Queen but simply 'bedfellow' and how insulting that in itself could be.

The power she held over James was very real regardless, and right to the end, he was unsure if he would follow her. Perhaps this chronic instability, on top of the way his Scottish nobles acted and the many brutal deaths he witnessed go some way to explain his later behaviour, but as this book so brilliantly portrays, he throws away every advantage Elizabeth gave him, ignored every piece of advice, every step she took to actually help him.

The book was built on the premise that there are new things to find in William Camden's work, the amazing discovery that within his drafts are hidden secrets about how the succession actually happened, but such work is only really explored in the last few chapters, and then in not enough detail to justify the way it is highlighted at the start. I expected a lot more from the Camden revelations than what were actually shown.

Regardless, I really enjoyed this, offering a new look at Elizabeth's reign through the lives of all these heirs and spares, and how almost all came to a miserable age. More than anything else, this book really shows that to have the Blood Royal was more a curse than a blessing when the Virgin Queen was on the throne.

The amazing story of the battle between the different claimants to the English Throne to succeed Elizabeth Tudor and how Elizabeth settled it. This book also highlights the mess that James and his son made of the legacy Elizabeth tried to give them.

If you've read about Elizabeth I at all, you know the outline of the story: that she didn't want to name a successor despite how problematic that was for her country, but that at the last she named James of Scotland. When I saw the description of this book, suggesting that in fact she never named James, I really wanted to know what was up.

Borman tells us that the new look at this topic was occasioned by a re-examination of the original manuscripts of William Camden's Annales of the reign of Elizabeth, which reveal lots of pasting-over and re-writing.

This is not just a retelling of the history of Elizabeth's reign, but a tight focus on anything and everything related to the succession. For the first time, I really understood Elizabeth's point of view on the topic - she said that as her sister Mary began to fail in health, she saw all the power brokers in the kingdom turning away from Mary and flocking to see her, and she never forgot it. She systematically tried to grind down and disempower anyone who had a claim, descendants of Henry VII's daughters or even the occasional person with lineage further back, whether they were protestant or not. James, however, she corresponded with extensively, in her own hand until she could no longer write well, constantly attempting to teach him things about governing England. (He was a poor student, for sure.) In every way he seemed selected for the role, except in the way that most mattered to him, which was an explicit designation.

James is a decidedly unappealing person and not the most successful king. His mother Mary, whom he cared about not at all until she was dead and he was king, is more annoying than in John Guy's definitive biography, and more fixated on the English crown at all costs. Arbella Stuart is just a wasted life, poor woman.

After such a thorough buildup, however, when we get to the reason the Camden manuscripts led to the suggestion that the crown was stolen, there is very little "there" there. What it comes down to is that the final version of the last hours of Elizabeth, including how she named her heir, is written in a hand other than Camden's, over and around various lines he'd written and rewritten on the subject. This is not an area where he wrote what he thought was a true version, and then pasted paper over it and wrote something else, which is what was implied by the book's publicity.

I found that underwhelming. There were multiple versions of Elizabeth's final hours, and there's no reason to believe any particular one more than another, but by the same token there's no particular reason to believe any particular one to be a fabrication either. Borman herself concludes that Elizabeth didn't name a successor, but she did everything she could to clear away every other claimant, so if the crown was stolen she colluded in that herself.

"Stolen" from whom? by whom? there really isn't anyone left standing to claim the crown except James, so despite the fact that Robert Cecil and other ranking members of the government worked hard to pave his way, there's no sign that it was meant to go to anyone else either. I'm not prepared to say the book is just hype, because it was very well focused on its topic and was enlightening in that regard. But I'm not left with the feeling the crown was really stolen and there was an alternative.

Editorial note: in Borman's next book, she should attempt not to use the phrase "at a stroke" or the verb "rant."

James VI of Scotland's succession to the English throne as King James I is often seen as inevitable due to a lack of Tudors. However, Borman traces the family tree, following the descendants of Henry VIII's sisters, to show there were actually quite a number of Tudor candidates, all of them played off each other by Elizabeth I during her reign, knowing that the second she definitely named a heir, all focus would switch from "the setting sun to the rising sun" as she had seen play out when she was her sister's heir.

The history goes all the way back to Henry VII as he arranges his eldest daughter's marriage to Scotland, and follows the Tudor family tree over the next 100 years, as some branches wither, some are cut off, and some flourish.

We follow all the machinations that went into getting James on the English throne as well as discouraging all other claimants (usually through denying people marriage) and then Borman walks us through the breathtaking propaganda rolled out afterwards to justify James' position as well as putting outright lies in Elizabeth's mouth on her deathbed.

The book should have ended there, but Borman continues, showing how badly James did as king of England, followed by how f*cking epically bad his son did as king, to show how all that work was pretty much wasted on these spectacularly bad kings, made to look all the worse in contrast to Glorianna.

I was a bit on the fence about how to rate this book and kept going back and forth between a rating of 3.5 and 4 out of 5 stars. I finally settled on a rating of 4 out of 5 because this book outlines Elizabeth I's heirs clearly and concisely.

Often, the discussion of who would succeed Elizabeth is dominated by a focus on Mary, Queen of Scots, and her son James VI. Occasionally, the Grey sisters Katherine and Mary will be discussed, and once in a blue moon, you'll hear about Arabella Stuart. By providing an outline of who Elizabeth I's heirs were in this book, Borman does something new because the lives and choices of all the potential heirs are incorporated into the narrative. I was also introduced to a few potential players for the crown that I previously knew nothing about.

Another strength of this book is that it provides the reader with the ability to evaluate the psychology and motivations of the key players for the English crown. That is not to say that Borman psychoanalyzes the claimants to the crown. Rather, she does an excellent job of highlighting the historical context as well as the current political context of each of the individuals she discusses. For instance, Elizabeth I's hesitation to name an heir because they would become the focus of plots comes from her suspected involvement in the Wyatt Rebellion against her sister. That experience seems to have weighed heavily on her. It is also something that Mary, Queen of Scots, and James VI never dealt with, as their right to the throne was never called into question. (Although James VI did usurp his mother, that is a convoluted part of the story.)

It was also interesting to consider how the patriarchal nature of the time impacted the motives of Elizabeth's advisors and James VI's opinions about who had the right to rule England after the death of Elizabeth I. The lack of interest in having a female leader is a clear part of Elizabeth I's story, as there was a constant struggle between her desire to remain unmarried and independent of her council, but James VI seems to have never considered that it was Elizabeth I and not her councilors running the show. It's clear to see how this belief leads to issues throughout James VI's rule in England. An interesting line of thought, which I think Borman introduces expertly toward the end of the book.

I also want to take a moment to shout out Philip II. This man was hoisted on his own petard, pressing his daughter's claims to various thrones in Europe.

Now, the reason that I was contemplating rating this book lower at a 3.5 is because I am not entirely sure that this book provides new information about the succession of James VI upon the death of Elizabeth I. Borman does present new evidence about how the narriatve of the transition of power was shapped at the time and in the later years of James VI's reign in England, but this comes at the very end of the book. Another reason that I chose to give this a higher rating is that I think being so familiar with the topic discussed in this book, it wasn't surprising that the political aspects that went into making James VI, King of England. If you are newer to the topic, this book is likely going to give you greater and deeper insights into the propaganda surrounding the merging of the two crowns under a single figurehead.

This is interesting to the long-time Tudor lover as it may make you consider the machinations of those involved in bringing James VI to England in a new light. If you are new to the topic of the transition between the Tudor and Stuart dynasties, this book will provide you with a great overview of the key players and events that unfolded to bring the crowns of Scotland and England under a single monarch.

Content Warnings
Graphic: Infidelity, Misogyny, Violence, Death of parent
Moderate: Child death, Death, Miscarriage, Sexism, Suicidal thoughts, Forced institutionalization, Xenophobia, War
Minor: Infertility

A well researched and written story about the Tudor Dynasty. I enjoyed it very much. I learned a lot of the history of that era. I suggest reading it.

The Stolen Crown – Tracy Borman

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

✍🏻 Non-fiction | Tudor–Stuart Succession | Political Intrigue

A bold and revisionist take on the well-worn story of Elizabeth I’s succession—what if she never named James VI as her heir, and the whole “seamless” transition was a carefully constructed lie?

I really liked the premise and the fresh lens Borman applies to well-known figures (Elizabeth, James, Arbella Stuart, Robert Cecil). The writing voice is engaging, and the political players are given strong focus, which kept me interested.

That said, I did feel the book was longer than it needed to be. The core argument is sharp, but I found myself wondering if it could’ve been made just as effectively with a little less repetition.

Still, for readers who love Tudor drama, political scheming, and alternate takes on accepted history, this one definitely delivers.

Overall, for me, a 4-star read.

I received this book as an Advance Reader Copy (ARC) from NetGalley.

I read this ARC for an honest review
All thoughts and opinions are mine

I absolutely love Tracy Borman and her books are so readable
I feel very lucky to have been able to read this very absorbing book

Highly recommend for any history buff

I am so pleased NOT to have been Queen Elizabeth I!
This book by Tracy Borman is an eye-opener on one woman’s (a queen no less) constant, unremitting, battle for survival in a world of male politics. Taking one issue only – who was to succeed Elizabeth I after her death, Ms Borman reveals a web of plotting, planning, counter-plotting, manoeuvring, subterfuge, and at times…panic. What is all too clear is the only person Elizabeth could trust was herself.
Elizabeth was famously tight-lipped about naming her successor, and over the course of the book we learn whey she was right to remain so. She had an exhausting juggling act to satisfy the expectations of politicians, the public, foreign powers, and herself. I also had not realised that the succession was not a matter of the closest blood relative, as Henry VIIIs last will and testament, and the preference of the reigning monarch, also played a part.
As a lay person with a curiosity about the Tudors, I had not understood Arbela’s lineage as the daughter of Henry VIIs sister. We learn of the miserable, cloistered, claustrophobic life this poor woman lived, simply because she was a potential rival for the monarchy.
The chapters about James were especially enlightening – verging on infuriating. Elizabeth tried to school this duplicitous ingratiate in how to be a good monarch, but he largely told her what she wanted to hear and continued being a misogynist of epic proportions. Oh, and an interesting fact. The Union Jack (after Jacobus or James) was his invention, a flag used as a device to try and unite the nations under his monarchy.
An outstanding book, which many would be proud to call a life’s work. Essential reading for anyone interested in or studying the end of the Tudor era.

Arc received through NetGalley.

This made a clear argument for Elizabeth never appointing James as her heir. I wish it had delved more into the other claimants to her throne. Arbella seemed the most interesting to me, but sadly wasn't explored a lot. It did at some point become hard to follow who was who and was related to who through who knows who.

I’m a big fan of Tracy Borman’s work as Chief Curator of the Historical Royal Palaces so I was excited to read this book (doesn’t everyone have a favorite curator? 🤣). Thank you to @groveatlantic for the advance copy through!

If you are familiar with Elizabeth I’s refusal to name an heir and her reputation as the Virgin Queen, some of the information in the book won’t be new. However, it was interesting reading about the many letters between Elizabeth I and James, King of Scots, as she tried to both influence the way he carried himself while also refusing to name him as heir.

The premise is that while Elizabeth did not name an heir, she seemed to favor James and either directly intervened to block other claimants to the throne or simply let time and drama do them in on their own. What was new to me was the sad story of Arbella Stuart (a rival claimant) and how she was a powerless pawn - it pained me to read about her part of the story.

Was the crown stolen? Did James ask a famous historian to rewrite his book to make it seem that he was chosen by Elizabeth on her deathbed? Borman does a good job supporting her theses on this with facts. A good read if you’re interested in Tudor- and Stuart- era England/Britain! I’d even say it’s a good beach read if reading about 400-year-old palace intrigue is your thing like it is mine.

For four-hundred years, we've been fed a narrative: that James VI of Scotland's accession to the English throne was a forgone conclusion. That a ring was dropped from a window at Richmond. That the dying queen would "have none but him."
Buuuuuuttttttt, thanks to the diligent research of @tracy.borman - we know that's not *exactly* what happened. The succession to the English throne was anything but a foregone conclusion. Many people claimed a right to Elizabeth's throne, some more dubious than others. After Mary, Queen of Scots had been disposed of, the ill-fated Queen of Scots son, James VI, stood as an early contender. Among them stood Katherine Grey (whose fatal alliance with another heir proved her demise) and Arbella Stuart, who would plague both Elizabeth and James.
Through meticulous research, we see the puppet-master Cecil, Lord Burgley at work, secretly proposing a council that would choose the heir to the throne upon the Queen's demise. As Borman points out, "he [James] owes his position less to popular support and more to the machinations of Cecil and his faction" who had worked at removing all the other claimants in one way or another.
By peeling away the pasted on pages of history, we see a different narrative emerge - one that can't help but turn the Stuart Dynasty on its head and laid the early ground work for the deposition of the unfortunate Charles I.

Tracy Borman is at the top of her craft with yet another deep dive into Ekizabeth 1. Evocative, approachable, and utterly engaging. She writes with such compelling insight.

As a history student, Tracy Borman is one of my favorite historians, especially for the reign of Elizabeth I. Since my research focuses on the early Stuart era, I was very excited about this book and once again she did not disappoint.

In this book, we take a look at the art of succession and importantly, a highly challenging one. Borman compares Elizabeth’s situation and potential successions to his contemporaries and his predecessors some of whom are women such as Mary Queen of Scots and Mary I and I believe this is one of the best parts of the book. In this way, we can see Elizabeth not only as a cautious ruler but as a cautious female ruler whom people had many expectations. 

James I succeeds Elizabeth I but as we can see from the book the turbulence was not over yet. Although I am still unsure about the title of the book, I believe the “Stolen Crown” aspect of the title is supported better by how James I acted after his succession to keep the crown. I am glad Borman did not finish the book when James I ascended the throne but continued her writing and I believe that supports her claims even more.

We can also once again see in the book how much people around the ruler had an impact on the successions and the lengths they may go through to make their wishes work. Cecils have always been quite interesting to me and while they are nowhere unknown in history, I believe their impact on this topic needs to be more known.

It is obvious that Borman did a quite amount of research for this book and she supports her claims via sources. This was probably my favorite book of hers. However, it is important to note that even if the idea of the book is interesting, the amount of ppl considered can be too much for non-history lovers. Still, I believe it needs to be given a chance.

I am incredibly thankful to Netgalley, Grove Atlantic, and Tracy Borman for an advanced reader copy of this book.

No matter how many books I read about the Tudors–and Elizabeth in particular–I never get tired of hearing the same set of stories told, retold, examined, and reexamined. The Tudors, from Henry VII to Elizabeth I, are arguably one of England’s most charismatic dynasties, and their influence on popular culture has always been intense. Given their larger-than-life personalities and actions, it’s no wonder that both fiction and nonfiction accounts of their reigns continue to flourish.

One of the more extraordinary recent works of scholarship is Tracy Borman’s The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit, and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty. As she has in Borman’s previous works on British monarchs–and she has written several such books–she manages to combine a lively and active voice with rigorous historical research. She allows the voices of those who lived through the years of Elizbeth’s reign and into James’s speak for themselves, even as she also zooms out at times to give us a renewed and useful perspective on these two pivotal monarchs and the transition that led from the age of the Tudors to that of the Stuarts.

The traditional account of the succession to the Virgin Queen goes something like this. Even though she spent her entire reign keeping discussion of the succession to a minimum–and often ruthlessly punishing those who dared to break that rule or, even worse, had a claim to the throne themselves–when it came down to it the throne of England passed peacefully into the hands of her cousin, King James VI of Scotland. Borman’s book, however, demonstrates that this was very much a piece of propaganda. In fact, the succession was a significant source of tension throughout Elizabeth’s reign and, far from being assured, James’ place in it, and the circumstances surrounding his accession, were far from guaranteed.

As Borman shows time and again, there was actually no shortage of potential heirs to Elizabeth, and the Virgin Queen was quite conscious of this fact. Of particular note were the two sisters of Jane Grey, Katherine and Mary. The former was a constant thorn in Elizabeth’s side, due in large part to her ill-advised marriage to Edward Seymour, a marriage that was of dubious legality–as Katherine hadn’t sought the Queen’s permission for it–and her life was marred by tragedy and imprisonment in the Tower. Even though Katherine’s younger sister Mary had no designs on the throne, she also earned the ire of her royal cousin thanks to her equally ill-advised marriage to a commoner.

Both Katherine and Mary, however, paled in comparison to Mary, Queen of Scots, one of the gravest dangers that Elizabeth ever faced to her throne. Though the story of these queens and their bitter rivalry is one that has been rehearsed many times, Borman somehow manages to make it feel new and fresh and exciting, immersing us in the heady, dangerous, and deeply fraught world of Tudor politics. Both women were intelligent and determined and ruthlessly royal, which is precisely why they were so often at odds. In the end, of course, Mary made the fatal mistake of trying to plot against Elizabeth’s throne and, thanks to the latter’s spymaster Francis Walsingham, she was ensnared and ultimately executed. This decision was arguably one of the most important, and devastating, of Elizabeth’s entire reign, and Borman allows us to see how it was a key part of so much of what came afterward when it came to the relationship between the Virgin Queen and Mary’s son, James.

I particularly enjoyed the way that Borman gave a deep dive into the dynamic between Elizabeth and James. While I certainly knew the two monarchs had corresponded extensively over the years, this book shows us the exact contours of this relationship, how Elizabeth was determined to mold the younger king into the kind of monarch who could successfully manage his English subjects when, at long last, he succeeded to her throne. James, while he was often willing to go along with this, was also steeped in the rampant misogyny of the period, which meant that he was far too unwilling to follow her advice (much to his detriment). By drawing so much attention to these letters, Borman gives us insight into the inner workings of monarchy and international relations, particularly as this manifested on a tiny island and its two perpetually-feuding kingdoms.

One of the other noteworthy, and tragic, figures to emerge from these pages is Arbella Stuart, James I’s first cousin and a perennial source of irritation and trouble for both the Scottish king and his English counterpart. Like James, Arbella could trace her descent from Henry VII through his daughter, Margaret Tudor, and she had the additional misfortune of laboring under the stern guardianship of her grandmother, Bess of Hardwick. Borman expertly paints this extraordinary young woman’s life in all of its poignant sadness since, despite the fact that she had royal blood running through her veins, she was always at the whim of others. She ended her life as a prisoner in the Tower of London, having failed to escape from England with her husband, yet another member of the Seymour family. Royal blood in the Tudor era could be far more of a curse than a blessing, particularly for women.

And what of the woman whose throne is the center of all of this wheeling and dealing, this sound and fury? Borman is one of those who views Elizabeth as a canny strategist, and I’m inclined to agree with her. Nothing illustrates this more than the very different ways in which Elizabeth and James’ reigns were understood among their contemporaries. While the populace of England might have greeted James’ accession with celebration and joy, it wasn’t long before opinion started to sour. Unlike Elizabeth, who had a knack for engaging with the common folk and keeping her courtiers in line, James quite simply lacked both of these skills. For all that Elizabeth tried to get him to follow her guidance, he simply could not or would not, and so it is no surprise that the English were soon pining for the days of old, for all that they had grown tired of being ruled over by an old woman.

As Borman’s book makes clear, the Stuarts were simply a very different dynasty than their predecessors. From James onward they believed staunchly in the divine right of kings, and this led them down a very perilous road, as Charles I learned to his regret. None of them, no matter how much power they craved or how much they believed in their own abilities, were ever able to come anywhere close to the success that Elizabeth I enjoyed throughout her long reign.

The Stolen Crown is a remarkable work of popular history, immersing us in the dark and twisty and paranoia-laden atmosphere of Elizabeth I’s court. We tend to think of the Tudor era as one of beauty and pomp and circumstance and artistic flourishing, and that it was. However, it was also a period marked by ongoing and often violent clashes between Catholic and Protestant, between the Church of England and Puritans, between various rival claimants to the throne. Were it not for Elizabeth’s canny ruling ability and the subtle schemes of Robert Cecil, it’s unlikely that James would ever have come to the throne. This book is thus a much-needed analysis of an underappreciated but pivotal period of English history.