Milli mála - 05.07.2016, Side 174

MARGINALISED MONARCH

Milli mála 7/2015

179
When considering how highly important Mary Stuart and the Ca-
tholic problem were to Elizabeth’s reign, it is clear how trivialised and
denigrated Mary’s role is in Elizabeth R. First of all, the series limits
Mary’s story to only one episode (aside from the occasional brief men-
tion in passing), while in fact her very existence, along with develop-
ments in Scotland, had great bearing on Elizabethan politics through
much of Elizabeth’s reign. Secondly, the problem of Mary is dealt with
in the context of Elizabeth’s fear of mortality, thrown into sharp relief
by her dilemma over Mary’s execution. Thus Elizabeth’s internal battle
is a major issue, while Mary’s desperate reasons for plotting against
Elizabeth, that is, her long imprisonment and hopelessness of being
released, are treated as secondary or even irrelevant. Finally, as sug-
gested by Moss, the focus is on Mary’s execution as “a result of politi-
cal maneuvers [sic] by Walsingham,” who in effect wages “a battle of
wits” with Elizabeth, and emerges as the victor (Moss 2006: 800). The
focus remains on Elizabeth’s struggles in a personal and political
sense, on her struggles with herself and her fight with her councillors.
Mary is secondary, even though Elizabeth’s struggles originate in the
problem presented by her and her religion. Moreover, as demon-
strated by Moss, Elizabeth always seems to be in control, as even her
hot-tempered tantrums are “largely strategic in tone,” and even though
she is sometimes thwarted or out-manoeuvred, her “aims and pur-
poses are clear” (Moss 2006: 799). Accordingly, when comparing these
two filmic productions of 1971, Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth R,
and considering that the very titles indicate their primary subject mat-
ter – Mary and Elizabeth, respectively – it is clear that the perception
of Elizabeth as a powerful, shrewd and – even if flawed – successful
female monarch by far outshines any small political triumphs Mary of
Scotland might have enjoyed in her time. These filmic representations
of the two queens clearly emphasise a view of Elizabeth I as superior
to a naïve, emotional, foolish and deceitful Scottish queen.
Later filmic treatments of Elizabeth I repeat this type of marginali-
zation although in different ways. An interesting example is Shekhar
Kapur’s Elizabeth (1998), noted by Susan Doran as using the long-
established historical interpretation of Elizabeth as self-fashioned Vir-
gin Queen and her status as national icon “to explore subversively is-
sues of gender, sexuality, and Englishness” (Doran 2009: 102). The