Readable but, as the kids say, "mid." I did like that the main character, Ursula, is a bit reckless and cavalier about what she does without suffering too much of a case of the stupids. But while this is marketed as a mystery, there's not really much of a mystery here—if I had to come up with a category for it, I'd say Queen's Ransom belongs to something like "cosy thriller." It was fine, but the constant undercurrent of "rational English Protestants who understand that God is love" versus "the swarthy French Catholic zealots who want to burn all heretics at the stake" got old quick. ( )

I read this book in preparation for an interview with [author:Fiona Buckley|33981], which is the pen name for British novelist [author:Valerie Anand|102974]. The entire interview can be read at my website or a series of posts at my blog.

I enjoyed the book, but found it a bit predictable. ( )

I had liked the first couple of books in this series - on the plus side, these are very rich in their historical content. They could qualify as historical novels in addition to mysteries. This novel contains some wonderful story-telling, which is almost enough to make me overlook some of the doubtful plotting. The "Ransom" part of this book seems almost perversely written for the express purpose of being anachronistic - in the author's eagerness to show how democratic Ursula, the protagonist is, she also makes her rather naively simple and open. Ursula is supposed to be a shrewd woman and a clever secret agent.

The main problem is with Ursula. She is a little too contemporary. I can understand her chafing at the restrictions on women during this period, but she does not try deal with them in an intelligent, realistic way.

The rest of the review is something of a spoiler, so you may want to skip it if you haven't read the book.

What has really ended my interest in this series is her on-again, off-again interest in her second husband. Even today I would find her vacillating incredibly selfish - if she isn't going to work on her marriage, why didn't she work harder to end it by an annullment!

In its time period, it's even worse - she can't fly off somewhere and get a quickie divorce if she changes her mind. Initially, she & Matthew were very attracted to one another, but he forced her into marriage, thinking that he was doing her a favor; she fled. I could understand if she never wanted to see him again, but now that she has voluntarily gone to live with him, there is no hope of an annullment. What does she mean that she hasn't decided if she is going to stay with her husband? Does it seem likely that this 16th century man is going to tamely let her leave after all this, particularly given that he might not be able to end the marriage and remarry? This book portrays Matthew in a particularly favorable light, and I find myself thinking that he deserves better than Ursula. ( )

The third of this series of engaging Elizabethan whodunnits. The characters are attractive and the stories flow well, though the remorseless anti-Catholicism can be a bit grating. ( )