1 comments about Requiem: Diana, Princess of Wales 1961-1997 - Memories and Tributes.

1. This is one of the few very best books on Diana. Her closest friends speak or write about her not long after her death. The Clive James piece, "No", is unforgettable, as is the late poet laureate's poem 6 September 1997. This is a keeper; should be owned by all who love or admire Diana.

No comments about Churchill: Man of the Century.

2 comments about George IV: Inspiration of the Regency.

1. George IV has always fascinated me as one of those monarchs who both impress and disgust. He was born George Prince of Wales eldest son of King George III and Queen Charlotte of England. to a world which offered all possible luxury and inherited a country which looked up to its royalty, yet poor george was to die for the most part despised. Mr. Parissien writes a sensitive and readable biography which shows both the causes and results this king's life. Realtionship with his parents were always strained and lacking in complete love or affection. No wonder George was only too eager to enjoy his power as regent when his old father the king was pronounced mad. Geroge's spending habits were phenominal, he would only have the very best no matter what it cost the country. Yet George was respected and loved by those in the arts especially admired by the architects of his time. One only has to look at the enterior of Carlton House or the Brighton Pavillion to realise this man's astetic sense. George's marriage was a disaster and events leading up to his niece Victoria becoming queen was nothing short of a miracle. A true caricature of his own self he gave his name to an era where good taste went hand in hand with infidelity and corruption. A highly readable book with some excellent illustrations.



2. This book is not for everyone. If you wish to understand, as I did, the politics and economics of the era, you will be disappointed. You will learn more about George's amours and clothing than you ever wanted to know.

4 comments about The Diana Years(Commemorative Edition).

1. Diana, Princess of Wales, was a favorite for the cover of People Magazine as he was with many other magazines throughout the world. This is a marvelous book which captures the late Princess in some of her most glamourous and elegant moments. This could easily be called a photographic-biography, and, it is a book which I have looked at and read many times. As far as I am concerned, Diana is a person who is glamourous whether she is wearing the most expensive dress or a simple pair of jeans.

   "The death of Princess Diana on August 31,1997, was one of those rare and terrible events that so jars people that they never forget where they were when they hear the news. It was inconceivable that the glamour, the goodness, and the verve that was Diana could have been erased in an instant. The void left by this remarkable woman whom William, 15, and Harry, 12, called Mummy and British Prime Minister aptly annointed 'The People's Princess ' was huge. Its dimensions could only be grasped six days later when the 36-year-old Princess of Wales drew millions of mourners into London's streets and another 2 billion people to their TV sets. The world had lost a patrician with a common touch - a beacon, a magnet, and a friend." p.9

   I watched her funeral services just as I watched her marriage in 1981. I think the most poignant picture of her funeral was that of her former husband, Charles, Prince of Wales; her son, Prince Harry; her brother, Earl Spencer; her son, Prince William; and her former father-in-law, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; as they walked behind her cortege the last mile of its journey to Westminster Abbey. Who can ever forget Prince Harry's roses with a simple card with "Mummy" written on it as it topped her casket.

   On the stroke of 11am on September 6, the chords of "God Save the Queen" sounded in the Abbey as the Welsh Guard entered to place Diana's casket on a catafalque between the Spencers and the Windsors. This was followed by Diana's favorite hymn, "I Vow to Thee, My country," which was chosed by her son, Prince William.

   After the services, Diana's casket was placed was placed in the hearst for its long journey to Althrop, her ancestral home. At times the windshield wipers had to be turned on to wipe away the floral tributes which were thrown on the hearst. Many floral tributes were left at the gates of Althrop. These were taken by her brother the next day and placed on the island where she is buried.

   P.19 begins a chapter ABOUT FACE. I liked the following which appears on the same page - "Her genius was a figt for projecting mood while preserving mystery...

   "How many times could we look at that face? Infinitely, it seemed. In 16 years, Diana never lost her power to fascinate. How did did she do it? Hers was certainly not conventional beauty. The nose, for example, was too long and broad. But the generous scale of her smooth features formed a perfect stages for her distinctly and enchanting unroyal bredth of emotions. Diana was a woman of a thousande espressions, each a tantalizing peek into her soul, Whe could be bashful or brazen, somber or sultry, poised or playful. Like Greta Garbo and Jackie O., Diana kept back part of herself, mainntaining the mystery. Perhaps that was the basis of her seduction. She made us think we knew her so well; yet we didn't really know her at all."

   On pages 24-25, the lovely picture of Diana taken at Highgrove, while she was sitting on the steps, is elegant. She is wearing a pair of red checked pants, a red sweater, a white blouse, and casual shoes - very simple, yet beautiful. On p. 38, there is a picture of Charles and Diana as they meet the press for the first time after their marriage. Diana had already witnessed pictures of Camilla Parker Bowles fall out of her husband's diary. Yet, when reporters asked her about married life she replied, 'highly recommended.' She kept the picture incident to herself even though she must have been hurting deeply.

   "At age 19, when she first blinked for the press, Diana was unsophisticated, but nontheless naturally shrewd - always listening, watching, learning. Bereft of guidance from the royal household, Diana gamely set out to carve a role for herself that went far beyond producing the requisite 'heir and a spare.' As she redefined royal glamor, championed unchic causes, and opened ger heart to people the world over; she reshaped the creaky role of princess for a celebrity-worshipping, mass-media age; in the process, she left behind an incomparable album of absorbing images. Though divorce ended Diana's chance of becoming Queen of England, the phenomenal outpouring of grief and affection that attended her death made it evident, to commoner and royal alike, that she'd earned the title she once said she coveted: Queen of People's Hearts."

   The chapter titled SHE COULD HAVE DANCED ALL NIGHT is my favorite. "On a magical evening in 1985, Diana proved to be one singular sensation." Diana had asked the famous Britsh dancer Sleep to choreograph a routine for her to perform at the Christmas benefit for the Friends of the Covent Garden at the Royal Opera House. It was to be a surprise for her husband and diana chose Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl." For about two thirds of the program Diana sat beside her husband in the roual box. Then, Diana slipped out and changed into the dress which she had chosen for this event. Wayne Sleep said he remembered walking on stage and there was a big round of applause. He recalls, 'Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet.' He said he told her to walk on for eight counts and then stand for eight more counts because the people aren't going to believe it. She did so and was very nervous at first. Sleep said, "Every step we took was followed by a huge round of applause and everything else, Diana was performing for an audience of one - her husband - whose box was right over the stage. Sleep says, 'She kept looking up at Charles. there was an enormous sense of fun between them...He was very happy and smiling the whole time.' The routine lasted four minutes and Sleep and Diana took eight curtain calls.

   Of Dians's many roles, it is clearly the role of Motherhood which she enjoyed the most. She took all her roles seriously, but once they began school, Diana always planned her schedule around the school calendar, She was very much a hands-on Mom.

   "As captivating for her flaws as for her glamour, Diana remains an intriguing riddle. Magical in life, tragic in death, the People's Princess has entered the real myth. Paradoxically, even as admirer exalt Diana, it was her flaws and vulnerabilities that made her the most widely loved royal of all times. Her special gift was making the people she met feel special." p157

   This book is filled with beautiful pictures and must be read to be truly enjoyed. This refers to the hardback book which contain 161 pages and measures 81/4x11inches




2. This commemorative volume celebrates the unique magic of the Princess of Wales. The book features a superb collection of photographs of Diana and her life, that was updated and expanded after her death. Major chapters are: Farewell, Shutter Bugged, Once Upon A Time, Hands-on Mom, The Princess at Peace, and much more. A sufficient amount of text accompanies the wealth of large, full color, sharp, candid photos. A must for fans of Diana. Completely indexed. A welcome 5-star addition to your home library.



3. This is a beautiful tribute to Diana. Although Diana's years have ended she will be remembered for many years to come.



4. Obviously, this is not the life story or a novel about Princess Diana. For what it is (basically a coffee table book) this is a gorgeous collection of photos. I am a collector of such portrait books, so I didn't see many pics never before published. But for the reasonable price, this is a worthy purchase.

5 comments about Wallace: A Biography.

1. We sat on a train out of Edinburg Scotland and took up a conversation with a charming lady across the table. We mentioned William Wallace and the Stirling Bridge Battle. She recommended we read her brother's book "William Wallace" by Peter Reese. We just ordered it through Amazon.com Salute to Haggis!



2. Peter Reese's book is highly recommended because:

   a) It is divided into logical sections.

   b) It covers both the life of Wallace and the aftermath right up to the date of publication (1996).

   c) It is very strong on the military aspects of Wallace's life and campaigns.

   d) It sets Wallace's life into the context of Scotland at that time.

   e) It is very well written, avoids going into unnecessary detail, and makes the important points.

   The epilogue is slightly out of date now as a lot has happened in Scotland since 1996 i.e. the devolution referendum in 1997 and the establishment of the new Scottish Parliament in 1999.

   In summary, one of the best Wallace biographies - we recommend it very strongly. [MacBraveHeart May, 1999]




3. For a cut and paste biography, this book does an excellent job of conveying facts (or offering up what may be facts) and making it plain that certain things are under speculation. It offers different opinions from different sources, but lacks personal touch. It wasn't emotionally engaging in the least, unless you care more about dates than the man himself.



4. Peter Reese was a soldier and rightfully concentrates on the military career of William Wallace. As a responsible scholar he also acknowledges the dearth of contemporary records of what actually happened during the Scottish wars of independence. Although some may find it annoying or confusing, the author is understandably forced to cite his sources so that he may present the material in the most objective form as possible. In a sense, the book is more scholarly than biographic, building upon the writings of previous Wallace biographers who also must have been challenged by the lack of records from the period. Despite this, he deduces from common sense and the trends of the era to portray what Wallace's life may have been like. His honesty is proof that history should be learned from sources other than Hollywood.

   There are a few weaknesses, however. The maps were helpful but somewhat incomplete. Major towns and fiefdoms mentioned throughout the book cannot be found in the maps of Scotland. The diagrams of Stirling and Falkirk are great but lack some important details (they might've sacrificed detail for greater area). Nonetheless these are minor points compared to the one factor I found very problematic. The author makes sweeping assumptions several times throughout his work, mostly concerning the character and essence of a certain people or race. Though cultures have strong mores or habits, that does not apply to entire peoples who may undergo several cultural transformations. In his assumptions the author stands dangerously close to stereotyping, however harmless his conclusions.

   Overall the book is a well-researched and honest account of Scotland's famed freedom fighter. The bibliography at the end is interesting in and of itself. It certainly moves one to explore further the mystery of William Wallace, a true nationalist.




5. William Wallace must have been a stunningly charismatic and daring leader. That certainly comes across in this biography by Peter Reese. However, the book doesn't quite pull you along as such an incredible life should. Perhaps that is due to the very few facts we really know about Wallace.
   
   Nevertheless, Reese gets the facts correct so far as I can tell and paints a good picture of the time in which Wallace lived. One does get a pretty good sense of Scotland itself, its people, culture, and society. England and its kings, particularly Edward I, are examined in detail as well.
   
   The battles are explained in good detail and the reader can get a fairly good sense of how the main battles went. The maps, both of the battles and Scotland, are somewhat lacking, as others have noted.
   
   The book, while correcting some facts about Wallace that the movie Braveheart missed, doesn't force one to reject the picture of Wallace in Braveheart. Certainly some events depicted in the movie were subject to creative license. The movie certainly doesn't show why Wallace won the battle of Stirling bridge, namely that the Scottish cut off and annihilated a large element of the English forces by taking and blocking the bridge. The book does verify his use of large wooden spears against the mounted knights, his poor relations with the Scottish nobility, and his rise from the common class. And the movie, of course, rightly portrays medieval warfare, perhaps too well! It would seem that Wallace certainly must've been the sort of passionate man envisioned in the movie.
   
   All things considered, if you like Wallace, you'll probably enjoy the book. It's Wallace the man we would all like to know more about but perhaps the fine details are too sparse to enjoy a full picture.

1 comments about Not Entitled: A Memoir.

1. Kermode, who introduced the English-speaking world to French post-structuralist theory when he was teaching at the University of London, is far less interested in such effete and rarified (not to say, obtuse!) things than in relating his childhood, youth and early adulthood to the later course his life took. Born on the linguistically isolated island of Mann, his recollections of those early years suggested nothing of the extraordinary literary-critical future that awaited him. His service in the Royal Navy puts to rest the common conviction that anyone who served in that war must be a hero. On the contrary, he considered the whole outing a total waste of time (something that anyone who's served in the military will recogize as fundamentally correct!). A narrow measure of his prodigious critical output may be found in another AMAZON offering of Kermode's: _The Uses of Error_

No comments about Churchill Goes to War: Winston's Wartime Journeys.

1 comments about Jane, the Quene Third Consort of King Henry VIII (Studies in British History).

1. As far as I am aware, this is the only biography of Jane Seymour in existence, and Ms. Gross has done an excellent job with it. Having traveled to England herself and visited the Savernake, conducting research on the Seymour family that came to power some five centuries ago, she has uncovered a great deal of information on the mysterious woman who managed to supplant the wife Henry VIII moved Heaven and Earth to have and to hold. Though his first two marriages are well documented and both Katharine and Anne are popular figures in history, Jane Seymour has somehow alluded us. In Ms. Gross's novel one can trace her life as never before; the history of her family and her home at Wolfhall, interesting information on her parents and their influence on her life, and her story of coming to Court and serving the Queen(s) before her. By revealing some of the shadowy mysteries of Wolfhall, Pamela Gross has taken us beyond Alison Weir's or Antonia Fraser's thorough research on Jane's reign as Queen to further understand the woman wearing the crown. It's no pleasure read though; the book is made up like a research essay with footnotes and sources. For any fellow researchers, I think you will find "Jane the Quene" to be the ideal biography on Henry's third wife.

5 comments about Churchill: The End of Glory : A Political Biography (Harvest/H B J Book).

1. John Charmley did not do his homework. There are so many things about Churchill he missed. He greatly understates his case that Churchill, by fighting World War II, lost Britain's empire. Far from being a vigorous and foresighted leader, Churchill was incredibly lazy and inept, and Charmley misses this. Churchill failed to prevent the spread of television, failed to stop the invention of the transistor and the integrated circuit, was completely asleep at the switch during the invention of the jet engine and the intercontinental jet airliner. And these are only a few of the things that Churchill didn't stop! Of course, it was these, combined with the continued outward spread of the Enlightenment from Europe, that lost Britain its empire. So, if the lost empire is the "fruit" of Churchill's leadership, at least let's be complete in our condemnation of the man. Otherwise, he might be seen as a leader of bottomless courage, able to inspire an entire nation to rise above itself and distinguish itself for all time, while in the bargain saving Western Civilization. Churchill knew evil when he saw it. Given how difficult it was to launch the D-Day invasion, the mind boggles at what would have happened had Britain gone down.



2. I was sorely disappointed when finishing the book, not because of poor authorship, but, on the contrary, because Charmley's abrupt ending after a laborious examination of Churchill's political career did not seem at all adequate. He begins with a lurid examination of Churchill's early life and transformation into a political maverick, assaying his beginnings as a freshman MP in 1901 to his rise as one of the most powerful statesmen in the world. Among the most engrossing, although not necessarily new, criticisms are the Prime Minister's deference to the Roosevelt administration's foreign policy, which the author believes, with very much justification, was a catalyst that helped to bring about the Cold War and the eventual dismemberment of the British Empire. Charmley also draws parallels with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in 1938 with that of Churchill's handling of Stalin in 1945, and infers Churchill was hypocritical in his criticism of the Munich Pact, in part because of his later policies with regard to the Soviet Union. But after the chapter on the fall of the Churchill government in 1945, the book wraps itself up with a conclusion of little more than two pages; this is hardly befitting such a monumental undertaking. Charmley does not take interest in documenting Churchill's postwar exploits, and makes almost no reference to his Fulton speech or his return to power in 1951. For those already familiar with the standard "song and dance" given by most Churchill biographers, this work is definitely worth your time, but those expecting a more plenary reference on all of Churchill's political career, not just that until 1945, should look elsewhere.



3. I regard Churchill as one of the alltime overrated figures in history, and certainly enjoy seeing him cut down to size. Charmley provides a veritable all-you-can-eat buffet for Churchill haters, as he recounts in excrutiating detail the extraordinarily flawed personality of Churchill.

   After setting the stage by illustrating Churchill's early years as a relentless opportunist and self-promoter, Charmley begins to build his case that Churchill was not the great wartime leader that posterity would have us believe, and in fact did not even have a sound grasp of military operational strategy. The most glaring example is, of course, the Gallipoli Campaign, which was an unmitigated disaster and effectively ended Churchill's political career for more than two decades. Churchill had gotten his shot at the big time (by becoming First Lord of the Admiralty) and had blown it. When he got his second chance, he showed that he had learned effectively nothing in the intervening period about military operations. Throughout World War II, he would attempt to undertake various zany military campaigns, most of which were politely ignored by the Allied commanders.

   While demonstrating Churchill's ineptitude in this area, Charmley (clearly a Neville Chamberlain apologist) builds a reasonably convincing case for Chamberlain, arguing that Chamberlain was using appeasement more as a tool for buying time than anything else. Far from being the naive optimist, Chamberlain was quite sure, argues Charmley, that Hitler was not to be trusted in any agreement. While giving Hitler what he wanted, Chamberlain was quietly building up Britain's military strength for the war he was sure to come. Because one cannot create a potent fighting force overnight, Chamberlain knew he had to buy time by whatever means necessary. Churchill, by contrast, was ready to rush into war with Germany in 1937-38, when Britain was in no way prepared to fight a continental war.

   Up to this point, Charmley's treatment of Churchill is reasonable from a scholarly standpoint. He can make coherent arguments and back them up with citations and evidence. However, Charmley's main beef with Churchill has never been that he was reckless & impetuous, or that he wasn't the great military mastermind. Charmley's problem with Churchill is that he lost the British Empire. At this point, Charmley's book begins to fall apart.

   Charmley is writing from the perspective of someone who thinks the British Empire was a pretty neat thing, and wishes that Britain still had its empire, just like the good old days. In subsequent writings, Charmley has taken his argument even further, casting FDR as an anti-imperial villain who had, as one of his wartime goals, the deliberate destruction of the old colonial empires. In Charmley's opinion, the primary goal of the British High Command during World War II should have been the preservation of the British Empire. The defeat of the Nazis and containment of the Soviet Union? Sure, the British could have tried to do that also, but the preservation of the Empire was the important thing.

   In fact, the British High Command was trying to do exactly that, and was continually butting heads with General George Marshall over priorities in strategy. The US wanted as its goal the invasion of Europe proper, and had hoped to launch the Normandy campaign in 1943, a full year before D-Day. The British, by contrast, favored a peripheral approach, sending valuable resources to reclaim portions of British territory that had been seized by Germany & Japan. The British also wanted opportunities for their commanders (such as Montgomery) to win glory on the field. The concessions the US made to Britain, it can be argued, prolonged the war in Europe by up to a year.

   So Charmley's argument that Churchill did not do enough militarily to preserve the Empire is not particularly valid. Charmley probably understands this, because he also comes as close he can to stating (without actually doing it) that maybe, just maybe, Churchill might have been well-advised to cut a deal with the Nazis, keep the Empire intact, and focus on the real enemy, which was (in Charmley's conservative viewpoint) the Soviet Union. Charmley does not explicitly say this, because he would then run the risk of being lumped into the same category as the likes of David Irving. However, he makes this argument repeatedly, in as an oblique a fashion as he can muster.

   The whole problem is that Charmley bases his argument on the premise that the British Empire could in fact have been saved, and this is where the biggest flaws in this book creep in. Charmley would like to ignore the fact that the British Empire had been slowly coming apart at the seams since the Boer War. Even during Victoria's reign, Britain had been struggling to provide the resources necessary to maintain Imperial control. The attrition of World War I was effectively the final nail in the Imperial coffin; it was only a matter of time before the inevitable occurred. One only has to look at post-war France, which tried to restore its colonial empire by force, to see how things probably would have turned out for Britain.

   One can also ask the question, is Charmley's belief that the Empire deserved to be preserved valid? This is definitely a matter of perspective. Did the British Empire ultimately do more harm than good? Conservatives like Charmley and Thomas Sowell may think that the British Empire overall was a good thing, but I do not agree with that at all. When you get right down to it, the Empire was simply the subjugation by Britain of other peoples & cultures by naked military force. I don't recall too many subject people voluntarily entering the British Empire. If FDR wasn't bent on destroying the British Empire, he should have been.

   While Charmley does provide some valid criticism of Churchill in this book, overall his most important criticisms are based on some seriously flawed premises. In the end, this calls into question the ultimate scholarly value of the book. While it has certainly been controversial enough, does this book truly contribute much to the scholarly debate over Churchill and the history of the 20th century? I don't believe so.




4. While Churchill's status as an icon is entirely too uncritical of a brilliant but erratic and flawed statesman, this is hardly a good faith effort to due Churchill justice. Charmley's constant apologies, evasions and outright deception regarding Neville Chamberlain's failed and ongoing efforts at appeasement after Munich & Churchill's opposing efforts clearly stems from an agenda more to rehabilitate Chamberlain's reputation than to do justice to Churchill's actions. Charmley's deception in this area is extreme. His reference more to Chamberlain & Halifax's diaries & letters than to Churchill's for the 3 chapters leading up to Churchill's ascent to Prime Minister doesn't do him much credit nor does his uncritical and adoring acceptance of Chamberlain's evaluations of virtually everything and everyone, including Hitler of all people. To give an example, Charmley, disregards 3 separate accounts of Churchill not rising to applaud Chamberlin's speech in the House of Commons upon his return from Munich as not being either recorded at the time or of being suspect due to malice toward Chamberlain. This same `critical' eye paints Chamberlain as being relentlessly opposed to Hitler after Hitler's entry into Prague in May 1939 in spite of Chamberlin's constant well documented efforts to continue appeasement after that time. He even neglects to mention Chamberlin's efforts to continue appeasement negotiations that continued even after Poland's invasion, not even mentioning something as significant as the Cabinet's revolt and ultimatum to Chamberlain that he must put a deadline on negotiations to Hitler & withdrawal from Poland on the 2nd day after Poland's invasion. All in all this book has some valid debunking of Churchill's myth and questions about the long term costs of Churchill's decisions but it is at times blatantly deceptive and far, far too uncritical of Churchill's rivals, none of whom except Eden are subject to much criticism.



5. Charmley, and some his reviewers, have got things wrong. Sure Churchill was an empire man, that is why he got so unpopular between the wars, when he resisted efforts to give India even the most limited self-government.
   
   But Churchill had no war aims, save victory. OK, victory was important, but we would not have had victory on Churchill's watch.
   
   He was terrified of D-Day, believing a re-run of the Battle of the Somme was in the offing.
   
   All his life, he was a side-show man. When troops were needed in Normandy, he pleaded for them to stay in Italy.
   
   In 1939-40 he even floated a notion - you could not call it a plan - to attack Germany via the Caucusus! The small matter of crossing Russia didn't seem to daunt him.
   
   Then there was his little known adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1943: this was an attempt to drag Turkey into the war. It was a dismal and humiliating failure.
   
   Unlike the other two leaders, Churchill lacked post-war aims.
   
   Stalin was quite clear: he wanted to take Communism westwards. He got his way.
   
   Roosevelt had clear war aims: one of which was to break down the system of trade on which the British Empire was based. He got his way, though he did not live to see it. (Globalisation started here.)
   
   Churchill? He basked in glory, a romantic to the end. Was he good for Britain, though?
   
   He got it wrong, very wrong on Europe: one of the biggest lost opportunities in British history was waved away by a nation that ended the war under the killer illusion that it was still a great power.

1 comments about BackStage with Bryan Rooney: From Liverpool to Ringo to Donna Summer....

1. For those who are musicians at heart, Beatle and/or Donna Summer fans, and want to take a behind-the-scenes look at what goes on in the life of a true Roadie, this book has it all. Bryan's stories are all incredibly heartfelt, and you can almost imagine yourself being with him on his adventures. I enjoyed the book very much and highly recommend it.