This was a well-researched and scholarly/academic reexamination of our understanding of the animosity between four monarchical-connected women who were ruling at the same time: Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I, Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots), and Catherine de Medici. The central thesis is incredibly intriguing and I think a testament to the different perspectives we get in academic thinking when we expand the scope of WHO is doing the analysis. The glances at, for example, how the gifts these women gave each other hinted at less hostility and more attempts at friendship, camaraderie, and peace were compelling. However, these pieces never really coalesced for me, unfortunately, feeling rather unfocused in many places to me. There was a point only mentioned in the epilogue that better supported the thesis than many others in the majority of the book. Why?There was also a good chunk of the last part of the book dedicated to Philip II (Mary Tudor's husband and, later, Catherine de Medici's son-in-law) because "he ACTUALLY ruled the whole world." Like, what? Okay, I guess. Quilligan even called out herself that it was strange she was addressing this in a book ostensibly focused on four women, but then proceeded to do so anyway. I get wanting to look at that moment in history holistically, EXCEPT that's not the stated purpose of the book. I had high hopes for this one, and I think there was some solid analysis and historical interrogation here, but overall I think it didn't quite live up to its promise.

Also, I'm not going to judge this too harshly or include it in my rating consideration, because I read an arc of the book, but there was a story retold almost verbatim about Mary Stuart being abducted and raped by her third husband, so that just felt like the editing hadn't quite been finished or something. I'm not sure what happened there, but it left me with some unenjoyable deja vu.