Having paid E30 for the 'The Royal Stuarts', I had high hopes--which were quickly dashed the moment I opened it. It's not that I don't like Massie's style. It's just that the facts are extraordinarily muddled. Queen Anne is lauded as the first English monarch 'since [Elizabeth I] to have spent all her life in England, except for one visit to Scotland'. How do I put this gently? Not only did Anne spend 1668-1670 in France, she also visited Belgium (then called the Spanish Netherlands). And again: 'In 1691 [Anne] wrote to James [II] asking for his forgiveness. James was not impressed; no forgiveness was forthcoming.' While Mr Massie is entitled to his analysis, I, and many others, I'm sure, interpret James's reply--'I am confident that [Anne] is truly penitent since [Anne] tells me so' (Gregg, p 84)--to mean that he was impressed.
Such sweeping assertions are typical of this book, and I could point keep pointing out its inaccuracies and errors. But that would be pointless.