Milli mála - 05.07.2016, Qupperneq 171

INGIBJÖRG ÁGÚSTSDÓTTIR

Milli mála 7/2015

176
more fluid, more pliant, more naturally attired, while Elizabeth is en-
cased in the virtual armor of her profession” (Walker 2004: 188).
Moreover, Mary is often portrayed as an innocent victim of circum-
stance, or as one manipulated by bickering and ruthless Scottish lords
and devious English politicians. This contrast between Mary and
Elizabeth, as feminine and masculine, as ruled by emotion, on one
hand, and calculation on the other, is clearly evident in Mary Queen of
Scots. A pivotal scene is a discussion between Elizabeth and her ad-
visor William Cecil, in which Elizabeth’s argument that Mary will reject
Dudley, despite being offered England’s crown after Elizabeth’s death,
and marry Darnley instead, is based on Elizabeth’s belief that Mary is
“first a woman,” while Elizabeth herself is “first a monarch.” When the
two queens then finally meet in Northern England, this contrast of
weak and naïve femininity and strong and shrewd masculinity is the
underlying theme of their conversation. Elizabeth’s words in both
scenes encapsulate the myth of Mary and Elizabeth as feminine and
masculine opposites and the film upholds this myth throughout.
Overall, therefore, Elizabeth is revealed as the polar opposite of
Mary in Mary Queen of Scots: the shrewd, calculating monarch who
puts the interests of state first and does not hesitate to plot against
Mary in order to weaken her power in Scotland. Elizabeth is jealous of
Mary’s beauty, despises her for her weaknesses and sees her as a
threat to herself and English interests, while, conversely, she is unwill-
ing to execute Mary because of the principle of divine monarchy. This
film’s Elizabeth does what she wants to and makes her own plans; her
councillors seldom succeed in dissuading her from a course she has
chosen to follow. She is, in Susan Doran’s words, portrayed as “a
woman who could succeed in a patriarchal world” (Doran 2009: 102).
Conversely, Mary is shown to rely almost entirely on the men around
her for help and protection. She lacks decisive agency and is shown to
make all the wrong decisions. The film fails to reveal – except to a
very limited degree – those aspects of Mary’s rule that were in some
measure a success,4 but instead conveys an overriding impression of

4 In his biography of Mary Stuart, a reappraisal of Mary based on original docu-
ments many of which have not been freshly examined since the nineteenth cen-
tury, Guy discusses various aspects of Mary’s reign in Scotland that reveal her
strengths. In his assessment, Mary’s enemies, both during her time and after her