Maybe knowing how she reigned Scotland and what her countrymen thought of her, might of shown me a little more insight into if she were indeed capable of having a hand in the death of Darnley! And what would have made a woman of that time period so obsessed enough to defy her husband's wishes and risk harm from her Scottish family clan or even worse, Elizabeth I?
Otherwise very well imagined story, it kept me on the edge worrying that she would find herself being questioned by a court of Queen Elizabeth as to her alliances to the crown! Dead three days after being executed for seditious acts against her cousin Queen Elizabeth, Mary Stuart remains the subject of discussion throughout London. Although many accept the royal position of treason and murder in the killing of Mary's spouse, Henry Darnley, many believe she was killed to eliminate a rival for the throne.
Scottish expatriate Lady Janet de Ros, wife of a wealthy English merchant, believes Mary was innocent of both charges, a victim of betrayal. She seeks the truth so heads from Fotheringhay Castle to Edinburgh to investigate what she assumes are lies. However, Lady Janet is ignorant as to how dangerous her inquiry is from those who want the status quo re Mary's crimes to remain as is. These powerful affluent individuals have no problem with the death of another Scottish lady as well as a campaign to dishonor Lady Janet and her family. This is an interesting historical fiction novel that brings to life the days after the state executed ax fell on Mary's neck.
The country is divided into those who believe she was innocent and those who believe she was guilty. Fascinatingly when Janet begins her inquiry, some adversaries use the Ton gossip network to destroy her and her family's reputation; this technique will remind readers of those who did likewise with President Bush.
A Question of Guilt
See all 4 reviews. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers. Learn more about Amazon Giveaway. A Question of Guilt: Set up a giveaway. Pages with related products. See and discover other items: There's a problem loading this menu right now. Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime.
Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. The blood, of course, came from Lancelot's wounds and not from Keu's, so that Melea- gant's accusation of adultery is correct, he has merely identified the wrong person. However, Guenevere, who does not know how the blood stains occurred, truly believes that she must have had a nosebleed. And she knows that the accusation of adultery with the wounded Keu is untrue. Her truthful denial is nonetheless challenged by Meleagant and, ironically, Lancelot accepts to defend Guenevere against the charges. The ensuing combat illustrates the dilemma and it is interesting to note that the combat between Meleagant and Lancelot is not resolved at this time.
Because of Bademagu's interference the duel is stopped without conclusive outcome, though the author makes it clear that Lancelot had the upper hand x. A similar situation arises in the Mort Artu when Lancelot is accused of murdering Gawain's brothers. He openly acknowledges that he has killed Gaheriet but states truthfully that he never intended to do so.
Strictly speaking the denial is true because his purpose was only to ambush Gawain's brother, Agra- vain. In the Tristan story Iseut deliberately fabricates an oath which seems to deny the accusation but does not in truth. By allowing the disguised Tristan to carry her across the water she is able to assert truthfully that no man, save the one who carried her across the water and her husband, Marc, had ever been so close to her.
She succeeds in the ordeal because she has told the truth, even though she is guilty of the crime 2. Yet the focus of the incident. It is important to remember in this case that Lancelot is not on trial nor is his adultery with Guenevere even in question. Essentially Lancelot is defending Guenevere from a false accusation. The case in Lanval reflects the importance of the truth or untruth of what one asserted.
On Dvd & Streaming
When Lanval told the queen in anger that even the lowliest servant of his lady was more beautiful than she, he undoubtedly intended to make her angry and it was a kind of insult because of the circumstances in which it was uttered. Lanval was accused both of soliciting the queen's love and of saying what. Ami and Amile are not blood brothers, but they were born and baptised on the same day, had the pope as godfather, and look as much alike as identical twins. After separation of fifteen years and a lengthy search, they are rejoined and go to Charlemagne's court.
When his plot is discovered he begs forgiveness and offers his brother's daughter, Lubias, in marriage. After Amile has rejected the match, Ami accepts Lubias as his wife. During the night the king's daughter, Belis- sans, who is passionately in love with Amile, enters his bed without announcing her identity. Amile asks who it is and urges the girl to return if she is Charlemagne's daughter.
- A Question of Guilt (Helen West, book 1) by Frances Fyfield.
- Aggressive Network Self-Defense.
- Secrets and Lies?
- A Question Of Guilt: The Murder Of Nancy Eaton by William Scoular.
- Follow the Author?
If she is a chambermaid, he offers her " ioo sous ". Meanwhile Amile goes to Ami and reveals his situation. In his view the author. He denied that he had solicited her love and, because there was no other proof, this charge was not pursued. But the issue of whether or not he had insulted the queen depended on the truth of his statement.
If it could be shown that the least servant of his lady was indeed more beautiful than the queen, then he had done no more than state the truth. Hence Marie sets up the entry so that others see the ladies enter first. Their assumption that each rider is Lanval's lady is virtually independent judgment that each is more beautiful than the queen in that her beauty is stunning enough to allow such a conclusion. Then, of course, when Lanval does not recognize the rider and they do turn out to be merely servants, the truth of his statement becomes manifest.
This friendship is tested severely by the circumstances in which the two friends become embroiled. Calin acknowledges the importance of points of feudal law in the chanson de geste tradition in general, but here he believes that " the discussion of juridical problems, crucial to so many chansons de geste, The poet cuts through them to propose a totally different attitude toward life " x.
According to Professor Calin, the author perceives in the legal dilemma presented in the text a tension between the letter and the spirit of the law, between a living moral code and petrified custom. Even though the heroes are guilty of perjury according to the law, the situation required them to go beyond the law to serve a higher code of morality. Professor Calin's interpretation makes sense of the text and is attractive as a solution, but I believe that the author himself was fascinated by the legal dilemma involved and deliberately presented the case to explore the problem and not to propose a solution which contradicts the medieval legal tradition.
In fact better understanding of the serious legal question helps one penetrate the text. But the real issue here is not the duplicity of the friends nor their spiritual guilt. The question of interest to the medieval man is how God can possibly render a decision which is just in such a situation. If, however, He grants the victory to Ami, then the. William Calin, The Epic Quest. For the medieval observer the dilemma was God's.
Man could do no more than accept the outcome as just. But how could God render a decision that would be just in absolute terms? As mentioned earlier this problem appealed to the scholastic mind and is rather prevalent in twelfth and thirteenth century texts.
Yet it was by no means a recent phenomenon. It reached back into the earlier church quarrels concerning the viability of the ordeal and the judicial duel in particular. Although accepted by the Church against its will as a fact of life, many churchmen rejected the notion that one could appeal to God for judgment in human disputes. They argued that the Bible expressly forbids one to tempt God. One who defended the judicial duel, however, was the ninthcentury bishop, Hincmar de Reims, and he did so in a case which almost appears to be a prototype of the dilemma found in Ami et Amile.
Even though the case is three to four hundred years older than that found in our narrative, a brief look at the circumstances and question involved should prove instructive. Hincmar addressed the subject of the ordeal in three writings 1, two of them in It is the second of these cases, the suit brought by King Lothaire II against his wife, Teutberge, which interests us.
Lothaire had married Count Boson's daughter, Teutberge sometimes written Tietberge , but the marriage remained without issue. Prior to his marriage the king had been enamored of a concubine, Waldrade, who had borne him a son ; he now decided to take her for a wife. In order to set aside Teutberge he accused her of having had previous intercourse with her brother, Hucbert, and he alleged that she had even had to undergo.
A Question Of Guilt: The Murder Of Nancy Eaton
Devisse's text is especially illuminating in placing Hincmar's treatises within the specific social context and the very difficult problem involving Germanic custom and Church doctrine in the question of marriage. Teutberge denied the charge before a secular tribunal in and submitted to the ordeal of boiling water or the hot iron K Teutberge's champion was successful in the ordeal " incoctus evasit " and Lothaire was obliged to take her back. After a little time and consultation, Lothaire decided not to accept the decision of the court and brought Teutberge to trial again, this time before an ecclesiastical tribunal.
Here she confessed to the crime and, at a later session, did so in writing. The bishops granted Lothaire his annulment and the king quickly married Waldrade. However, some of the clergy were dissatisfied with the proceedings and they appealed to Hinc- mar de Reims. In their argument against accepting the original judgment revealed by the ordeal, the ecclesiastics noted that there were a few ways that Teutberge might have survived the ordeal and still be guilty of the actual crime.
Is it not possible that she had confessed her crime in the forum internum and had been washed clean of the stain by proper penance? In this case would God not consider her free from this sin? Moreover can one even be tried in a. But it is their second argument which is so interesting when seen in the light of Ami et Amile. It was noted that Teutberge had two brothers named Hucbert.
Was it not possible, they argued, that she had made her oath while thinking of the brother with whom she had not committed incest? Thus she could deny the accusation truthfully and in good conscience. Would not God then be obliged to allow her. The ordeal of boiling water would involve reaching into a boiling cauldron as far as the elbow to lift a stone from the bottom. The test of hot iron required one to carry a red-hot iron weight the graver the offense the heavier the weight a certain number of paces before releasing it often three steps for minor offenses and nine for serious crimes.
The resulting wound was bandaged and observed a few days later. If the wound had begun to mend, the defendant was considered innocent.
Essentially Hincmar rejected these arguments in asserting that God could never be fooled. Hincmar's success and whether he is correct or not 1 are not so important as the consternation caused by the dilemma and the doubt these men had concerning the adequacy of the ordeal as a revelation of a just judgment.
In Ami et Amile the author poses a similar dilemma and Ami can deny the charge of unlawful intercourse because it is really his friend of nearly the same name who is guilty. Just as Teut- berge denied incest with her brother, Hucbert, because she thought of another, so did Ami reject the accusation because it is alleged concerning Amile and not himself.
In an absolute sense even Amile is not really guilty of the crime against his lord ; he was unaware that the woman in his bed was Charlemagne's daughter.
[Question of guilt in hemorrhagic death].
It is Belissans who is really guilty and her attitude toward the possible judicial duel is revealing. Parisot, Le royaume de Lorraine sous les Carolingiens, Paris, Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Nominated for 1 Primetime Emmy. Edit Cast Cast overview, first billed only: Doris Winters Ron Leibman Detective Louis Kazinsky Peter Masterson Lieutenant Tom Wharton Alex Rocco Mel Duvall Viveca Lindfors Elizabeth Carson Stephen Pearlman Herman Golob Ron Rifkin Detective Dick Tarcher Jim Antonio Miriam Hamlish Katharine Bard Winters Lisa Blake Richards Edit Storyline Inspired by the Alice Crimmins case in New York, Doris Winters Tuesday Weld is an attractive woman whose personal lifestyle is viewed by many as distasteful when she is accused of murdering her young daughter.