MARY WAS ONCE INCLUDED AS A MARTYR FOR THE FAITH.

I am, as some may know, very devoted to Mary Queen of Scots. I have read almost every book written and came to the conclusion that she is the most lied about historical figure in history. Of course for four hundred years after her death what you believed about Mary was dictated by whether you were Protestant or Catholic,although not many Catholic books were published in her defence 
There is now a film to be released this November amid much controversy. Unfortunately the controversy is whether Elizabeth and Mary did meet as shown in the film or not. And great voices are raised that this is a distortion of history. We are told that the film is based on the book on Mary by a John Guy. This 'historian' claimed that he had produced the real truth on Mary, so let us examine what he says in the book.

ON the murder of Darnley, yes, he goes into much description of the night Darnley was murdered, how Mary was with him, and how he didn not want her to leave but having described the scene, on the question of whether there was any evidence Mary was complicit in the murder, this truthful objective historian says, "There is no evidence, BUT SHE MUST HAVE" 

Then there is the trial of Mary by Elizabeth. Mary was condemned by 'copies' of the letters' she had sent to Babbington. Mary requested them to produce the 'originals' written in her handwriting and with her own seal. BUT SHE WAS DENIED. Guy did not question this nor do other historians who have dared to write the truth about Mary Queen of Scots. Nor have the originals of these copies ever been asked for by any of the historians. ON this evidence a modern court would have to reach the conclusion that she had never corresponded with Babbington. But no, no, no, we must defend Elizabeth.

But all people want is drama. Who really gives a dam if she murdered Darnley or not, who gives a damn if she tried to murder Elizabeth or not, but no this is insufferable someone has portrayed a meeting of Mary and Elizabeth.