OK well...
I should tell you first I'm biased I hate Elizabeth shes a biatch. I considered it at one stage actually
First I would identify some historians/biographers who are sympathetic to mary. look at how they justify mary's actions. this might give u ideas as to the question, what was her blood claim to the throne, how did her marriage enhance this, should elizabeth have been crowned when she had previously been declared illegitmate. Who thinks elizabeth was justified in her treatment of mary, who thinks mary was justified in trying to get the throne? Was mary trapped, did she get a fair trial and exceution? Was babington justified in his methods?
And about mary's background....how effective was she as a monarch anyway? most scottish actually hated her, and she hated scotland after being in france for so long. what would have been the effect of having a catholic queen? elizabeths religions reforms acts were controversial enough, was mary a vengeful violent catholic like mary tudor what woould she have done. but i guess thats a bit of a what if.
Also, why do historians often judge mary harshly? how much did the golden age of elizabeth influence their opinions. how much did her historians perpetuate the negative view. would elizabeths trap to catch mary have been looked upon in the same light if she wasnt one of englands longest and arguably best monarchs?
I mean in this story, mary is condemened as the baddy, but how often was elizabeth manipulative and cruel in getting on to and holding the throne? I mean to be crowned she had to overthrow lady jane grey, and had the poor girl executed event though she was just a puppet. why isnt that judged differntly?
hmm this is a lot of crap. soz if it makes no sense or is not helpful. its late. im tired
