1 comments about Gladstone 1809-1874 (Oxford Lives).

1. William Ewart Gladstone is one of the giants of nineteenth century British politics. First elected to House of Commons in 1832, he went on to serve in a number of offices, most notably as prime minister for an unprecedented four times over a 26-year period. The leader of the Liberals, he left an indelible stamp on the party which spent a generation emerging from underneath his long shadow.
   
   There are few more qualified to study Gladstone's life than H. C. G. Matthew. An accomplished historian, he was co-editor of the third and fourth volumes of the published edition of Gladstone's diaries and lead editor for the remainder of the series. This project forms the basis of his book; taken from the introductions to the third through the eight volumes of the series (with two original chapters added to cover Gladstone's early years), they offer a penetrating examination into the man in the context of his times.
   
   Born in Liverpool in 1809, Gladstone was the fifth child in an Evangelical household. The son of a wealthy merchant, he attended Eton and Oxford, where he excelled academically. Matthew details Gladstone's intellectual and social development during this period, examining both his studies and the circle of friends he had in school. It was the father of one of these friends, the Duke of Newcastle, who offered Gladstone a seat in Parliament from a pocket borough, thus launching the young man on the political career he sought.
   
   Matthew notes that at the start of his career Gladstone was a Tory and a staunch opponent of many of the reform measures being introduced by the Whig governments of the era. Yet while deemed by many to be "the Tories' best hope" for the future, Gladstone's politics were still evolving. Matthew sees the decade from 1841 to 1851 as the crucial period of Gladstone's political development, as he broke from the Conservatives on the issue of free trade and completed his separation with his attack on Disraeli's budget in 1852. Yet as Matthew shows, the decade that followed proved to be the most personally complex period of Gladstone's career. Like most Peelites, Gladstone had no great attachment to the Liberals; in fact, throughout the 1850s his personal inclinations continued to lay more with the Conservatives than with Palmerston. Cooperation ultimately foundered on the social implications of Gladstone's taxing schemes and Disraeli's presence - in the end, Matthew states, Gladstone became a Liberal by process of elimination.
   
   At the same time as he was building his political career Gladstone was also starting a family, marrying Catherine Glynne in 1839 and presiding over a steadily growing household. Matthew provides an insightful examination of Gladstone's private life, particularly with regards to his faith. Embracing Tractarianism after Oxford, he was usually in attendance at church on a daily basis and in many of his writings he attempted to reconcile Christianity to modern civilization. His faith also found expression in an unusual form in his "rescue work" with London prostitutes. Matthew's analysis of this aspect of Gladstone's life is one of the most sophisticated in the book, interpreting his involvement as motivated in part by Gladstone's acknowledgement of (...) the need to confront and overcome temptation - a process that sometimes included self-scourging. In spite of the appearance of this work, though, Matthew concludes that Gladstone ultimately remained within contemporary social conventions and was never unfaithful to his wife.
   
   In 1852 Gladstone joined the Aberdeen coalition as Chancellor of the Exchequer, serving in that office - with a four-year gap between 1855 and 1859 - until July 1866. Matthew considers this the most successful ministerial period of Gladstone's career, as well as the most satisfying on a personal level. Embracing the Liberal ethos of limited government, Gladstone strove throughout his tenure to reduce its role in the economy by minimizing expenditures and shifting finances from tariffs towards a mixture of direct and indirect taxes. Matthew's account of such an intricate and inherently dull subject is excellent, clear in its analysis and straightforward in its explanation of how these policies fit into Gladstone's vision of government and society. This period also saw Gladstone's emergence as a national politician, the unquestioned heir to the Liberal leadership after Palmerston's death in 1865 and Lord John Russell's retirement in 1867.
   
   The final three chapters cover Gladstone during his first ministry. In the aftermath of the 1868 election the administration existed on a foundation of sand. Lacking a counterpart to John Gorst, the Liberals failed to build a party organization in the country, as Gladstone relied on his considerable political skills to maintain his government. Here Matthew concentrates on the issues the prime minister dealt with himself; the broader achievements of his administration, in such areas as education and army reform, are addressed in passing, as Matthew focuses on foreign policy and Gladstone's "mission" to pacify Ireland by addressing discontent over religion, land, and education. The failure of the Irish Universities Bill in March 1873 prompted the resignation of the cabinet; Disraeli's refusal to form a Conservative government forced its return, exhausted and fatally weakened by scandal. When Gladstone decided on dissolution the next year, the result was a Conservative victory and his retirement from politics. Though two more decades remained in political career, at this point he had already left a considerable legacy, one that Matthew has analyzed with an ability and expertise that is unlikely to be bettered.

No comments about Elizabeth: 80 Glorious Years.

5 comments about The Tyrannicide Brief.

1. This is a book that should be read by all American lawyers and law students. It puts the lie to the various myths about the development of Anglo-American law and its near godlike propagandists like Coke and Hale. With a little thought we see exactly what the framers of the American constitution hoped to avoid when they put limits on the power of the government. Thank God, so to speak, that we no longer draw and quarter (as revoltingly described in great, yet necessary, detail) as punishment. The United States and the Commonwealth are fortunate to have inheirited their legal systems well after this dark period.
   
   That said, Geoffrey Robertson writes with great insight and wit. He is a pleasure to read with his insights into today's problems with tyrants and his acerbic observations. Robertson, surpisingly, even knows about "speed dating" and suggests that Puritans indulged. Imagine that.
   
   Robertson is one of those nice lawyers who enjoys afflicting the comfortable (the majority of lawyers) and comforting the afflicted.



2. Along with Dickens' Bleak House, this book is a must read for all common law lawyers and those who aspire to join the profession (to be read after Bleak House!!). It is a riveting story unto itself, describing the first piercing (and the last for another 300 years) of the shield of sovereign immunity by a low-born, commoner barrister whose courage, character and conviction allowed him to face down and bring to book one of the most brutal dictators of his day, King Charles Stuart I of England. The parallels between the trial of Charles 360 years ago and those of Milosevic and Saddam today are unnerving to say the least.
   
   If only we had Robertson's protagonist, John Cooke, with us today to take on similar prosecutions--Charles' trial , sentencing and execution took all of 2 weeks--a shameful rebuke to those incompetent bureaucrats running our present day War Crimes' Tribunals (which incompetents recently allowed Milosevic to slip the "noose" of justice, such as it is today, by dying in his bed after more than 4 years of aimless prosecution). To make matters worse, Charles was probably even afforded purer due process.
   
   Robertson's exhortation in his epilogue to human rights lawyers and campaigners to work towards the passage of an anti-tyranny covention under the auspices of the UN to allow for the lawful removal (as opposed to the current reliance on the principle of might makes right) of sovereign dictators and despots who are culpable of tyranny and other crimes against humanity towards their own citizens is spot on. The problem is that the UN today in many ways acts with the impunity of a tyrant towards its own staff and other third parties, and can never be trusted to be the court of last resort to prosecute the likes of Saddam, Mugabe and their ilk.



3. I confess: I like the way Geoffrey Robertson thinks and the way he writes even if I don't always agree with his conclusions. This book is a great read. If you can suspend your knowledge of the history (and any associated bias) and look at the events through the perspective of the law, then this is a wonderful fresh look at the legal issues uncovered/exposed by these events.
   This book is not just about the events of 17th century England. The issues discussed reverberate today in the trials of modern war criminals and leaders.
   
   Highly recommended to all who have an interest in history, the law and contemporary international events.



4. This is without doubt the most cynical re-writing of history I am yet to read (and believe me that is saying something). To present the illegal trial of King Charles I as a good deed beggars belief!
   This book falls down because it glosses over the fact that Colonel Pride purged the House of Commons of some 150 members leaving a small rump of 80 members who were totally dependent on the Army, therefore giving Cromwell his way to put the King on trial. Not to mention that the House of Lords were not part of the process.
   
   Having read the book and listened to Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC put forward his points in interviews, it is clear to me that he has his own agenda for writing such a book as this.



5. This is an excellent read. I did not know a whole lot about the trial and execution of Charles I before reading this book, but I always subscribed to the view that the dastardly Oliver Cromwell had unfairly done away with him. This book challenges that common assumption.
   
   However the real focus of Geoffrey Robertson's book is on John Cooke, the lawyer who accepted the brief to try the king. Robertson's account of John Cooke's life is a true inspiration to lawyers to abide by their principles rather than choosing the politically safer option. Unfortunately it is apparent from the book the John Cooke was quite exceptional amongst the lawyers of the time in taking a principled approach.
   
   Also as a Christian, I found the account of John Cooke's faith in Jesus Christ to be inspirational. It is this faith which gave John Cooke the strength to "die well" despite being drawn and quartered.
   
   A great read!

2 comments about Freud's Wizard: Ernest Jones and the Transformation of Psychoanalysis.

1. For those interested in the history of psychoanalysis in general and Freud's inner circle in particular, Freud's Wizard is a laudable contribution to the literature. It manages to be scholarly in its attention to historical detail while at the same time, readable for the interested layperson who is not steeped in knowledge of psychoanalysis. It will especially appeal to practicing analysts and those of a psychodynamic orientation. How Ernest Jones develops his interest in Freud's new theories, joins his inner circle, and his tireless efforts in promoting both the "cause" and his own career are smoothly presented by biographer Maddox.
   
   Despite her admitted admiration for Jones, Maddox fairly presents Jones's character weaknesses as well as his strengths. She doesn't shy away from facing some of the questionable moral indiscretions in Jones's life-both personally and professionally- nor does she paint an overly positive portrait of his motivations in dealing with colleagues, Freud, or the numerous women in his life.
   
   As might be expected, the most interesting sections have to do with the interactions through letter and personal meetings with Freud himself and the other eminent members of Freud's inner circle. We see how a very short man who worries about overcoming his common name becomes a "true believer" in the theory and practice of psychoanalysis and is able to make a distinguished life for himself on the heels of one of the giants of his time.
   
   Jones appears to have been the right person at the right time, attaching himself to Freud and becoming, as he liked to boast, "the pre-eminent psychoanalyst in the English-speaking world." His strong personal presence, intellectual and administrative abilities, skill at political in-fighting, and faithfulness to Freud all made him, if not a "wizard," at least an indispensable right-hand man who stayed true to his master until the end. If nothing else, we owe Jones a debt of gratitude for his courageous act of personally orchestrating the immigration of Freud and his entourage out of Vienna during the Nazi take-over and his crowning achievement of his three volume biography of Freud.
   
   I enjoyed reading this biography, learning a good deal more about Ernest Jones than I had known, and came away with a sharper appreciation for his place in the pantheon of central early psychoanalytic figures.



2. FREUD'S WIZARD: ERNEST JONES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF PSYCHOANALYSIS discusses Freud's disciple and colleague who brought the international psychoanalytic movement to London and fostered its spread to the U.S. With so many books considering both Freud's life and theory, it's satisfying to find an adjunct which details a contemporary who had a dramatic impact both on Freud's personal life and in the promotion of his theories. FREUD'S WIZARD is essential for any college-level or general-interest collection that already houses biographies and discussions of Freud: it considers the history and evolution of early psychoanalysis and the man who vastly contributed to Freud's theory's promotion.

5 comments about Diana in Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess.

1. While you may not agree with the point of view that Smith takes in this book... it is a well written book. Easy to read and interesting.



2. This is perhaps the only serious piece of writing on the late Princess of Wales that I have read. While not presented as a scholarly biography (we'll need to wait years for that), the book does take several steps back from the hysteria and romanticized adulation attending Diana's years on earth and attempts to provide objective analysis rather than breathless, tabloid-style speculation. Diana fans for whom she could do no wrong may be outraged by Bedell Smith's detailed portrait and her conclusions; this is a book only for thoughtful readers who are willing to set aside their preconceptions of the subject.
   
   Although Bedell Smith is by no means the first person to suggest that Diana was suffering from a clinically-defined mental illness, Borderline Personality Disorder (called by some "Emotion Dysregulation Disorder"), her discussion of the subject helps shed some light both on her subject's behavior and the fate of her disastrous marriage. This is interesting material, and the author was brave to include it, given the manner in which Diana continues to be idolized by her admirers.
   
   Reasonably well-written and readable, meticulously-researched and documented. Especially recommended to those who take a jaundiced view of the modern cult of celebrity.



3. This is one of the most boring, tediously written books I have ever read. I am only reading it for lack of another book at the moment. If Diana based her life solely on what ever tattle magazine writes, I would be depressed and bulimic too. I am sure she had other things to worry about besides cheap gossip rags and what they wrote. At least I hope she did. Who cares about all the silly magazines? The book makes it sound like this was her mission, it is tedious and soooo bring.



4. On the positive side I couldn't put this book down. Before I read this book I had never really been interested in Diana, although I was shocked by her death. This book doesn't delve deeply into her death. Instead the detail is about everything that happened to her from 1981 until 1997.
   
   The problem with the book is that it is obvious that despite claims of objectivity, Prince Charles is more sympathetic than Diana. I can't buy Ms Smith's psychiatric diagnosis of Diana that she was a borderline personality. Clearly Diana was troubled. However she may have been in fact been victimized by the royal family during the time she was married, separated from Charles and divorced. Certainly Ms Smith makes an excellent case that Diana showed poor judgment and lived in a fantasy world as well as showing signs of extreme mental disturbance(many details Princess Diana herself was the first to expose).
   
   In any event I would recommend reading this book but judging it with a skeptical eye.



5. The author had done a substantial amount of research and logically connected the dots together. This book helps me to solve many of the puzzlement I had over Princess Di's behaviors as well as the motivation behind her shocking TV interview and the book by Morton. She obvious had many serious emotional, psychological-mental issues. Mental dysfunction has many levels. Although Princess Di was not a wacky psychiatric case., she was indeed a case in certain degree. She was more unbalanced person than the average people. Prince Charles was just one of the wrong man she had related. Just look at all her love affairs and the lovers she had... as well as the way she "love" them. They all went wrong for her and she had made mistakes with each of them. That's something call a track record.

5 comments about Bosie: The Man, The Poet, The Lover of Oscar Wilde.

1. I was stunned by the quality of Mr. Murray's writing.

   Mr. Murray enables the reader to feel as if he knows Bosie, understands Bosie, and has been a witness to Bosie's life himself. Bosie's life as well as his relationship with Oscar is so well written that the reader understands the spirit and tone of the life and the relationship. Very well done !!!




2. While Douglas Murray had access to Douglas family materials heretofore unavailable, he of course did not have access to Bosie Douglas himself. But another, now deceased scholar of all things Wildean, Rupert Croft Cooke, did. Cooke, author of dozens of novels, biographies and other books, knew Lord Alfred Douglas when he, Cooke, was a youngster. As a result, his book, entitled Bosie: Lord Alfred Douglas, His Friends and Enemies, gives an intimate look at Bosie in more mellow old age. Cooke, a former newspaperman in the glory days of Fleet Street, was also a much more lively writer than Douglas Murray. His book is out of print, but can commonly be found in used book shops.



3. Having read The Unmasking of Oscar Wilde by Joseph Pearce, I decided that it would be interesting to know more about the person who is made out to be the villain in Oscar Wilde's downfall.
   
   Bosie by Douglas Murray is a detailed book chronicling the life of Lord Alfred Douglas. It is a detailed account of a man hounded by family traits, his own desires, repentence, regrets and sad ending. It really is unfair to blame Alfred Douglas for Wilde's downfall. Wilde, if anything, was self destructive and not only destroyed himself, but everyone around him, including his wife and children, as well as Alfred Douglas. Murray is clear that upon renouncing his wasted and immoral youth Douglas became a moralist, like the father he hated, and became addicted to litigating every slight made against him. Wilde's circle of friends and admirers needed someone to blame for his demise, so they picked Lord Alfred Douglas. This book shows that like all moralists Douglas became paranoid and biased, but later in life did truly repent and apologized for all the harm he had done. He died penniless, alone and very, very sad. Like Wilde, Douglas's actions also destroyed his marriage and the life of his child. Bosie by Douglas Murray is required reading for all those who want to make up their own minds on Oscar Wilde and know more about the man who figured so prominently in Wilde's life.



4. 'Bosie' paints as rounded a picture of a character known usually for his supporting role in the Oscar Wilde circus as is possible for a subject widely viewed as having little worth beyond his time with his lover and muse. As a first book for so young a writer, Douglas Murray has done us the inestimable favour of elucidating from Lord Alfred Douglas' poetry, letters and other writings the flawed character and lesser talent of someone significantly more interesting than the two-dimensional upper-class arm candy he is frequently portrayed as. Having burnt his first flame in the dazzling candelabra of Wilde's celebrity, Bosie is so often overlooked and dismissed. Murray's thorough research and ample quotation from Bosie's life and works independent of Wilde cannot but help an enquiring reader to a better understanding of their relationship and of the bearing that Bosie's family had on Wilde's fate. This is all the more remarkable for coming from a writer so close in age, and convceivably the outlook of a yet-to-mature individual, to his subject than most other biographers. I look forward eagerly to Douglas Murray's future work.



5. There are a number of reasons why "Bosie" is a remarkable book--even setting aside the youth of the author. (He was 14 when he began the research and 20 when this biography was published.) First, Murray somehow gained the confidence of the surviving family members related to Lord Douglas and his circle, and he enjoyed unprecedented access to both reminiscences and documents. In addition, the author managed to secure the release of the British government files from Douglas's imprisonment--papers that, by law, were to remain sealed for another half century. And third (and foremost), he has upended the portrait of Lord Douglas written by one of the twentieth century's foremost scholars, Richard Ellmann.
   
   As readers of the now-standard biography of Oscar Wilde know, Ellmann portrayed Douglas as a manipulative yet beautiful cipher with not much in the way of wit or intelligence. Murray, in contrast, depicts Douglas as a worthy companion to Wilde (in spite of their frequent and legendary spats) and an artist in his own right. While certainly not on a par with Wilde, Douglas produced a respectable body of work and was, during his life, an appreciated (if litigious) editor. A true assessment of Douglas's worth, I think, would fall somewhere in between these two portraits, although Murray's book contains the more well-rounded assessment: while trying to revive Douglas's reputation, it does not try to whitewash his notoriety and imprudence.
   
   Indeed, most readers will share Murray's fascination with Lord Douglas's life. Even after Wilde's death and Douglas's conversion to Catholicism and renunciation of homosexuality, Douglas refused to fade away, becoming "a man who confessed that he was popularly believed to revel in litigation." And litigate he did: the dramatis personae of Douglas's court cases are a veritable who's who of the English literary scene, and the parade of libels and lawssuits culminates in a bizarre and foolish challenge to none other than Winston Churchill.
   
   Although Douglas's life is perversely intriguing, I am hard-pressed to share Murray's enthusiasm for the poetry itself--and this, of course, may be more a matter of taste than of intrinsic worth. Douglas's oeuvre divides rather neatly into three categories: nonsense verse (mostly for children), biting--and often nasty--lampoons, and staunchly traditional sonnets and lyrics. The first group is best forgotten, and the second is (naturally) dated; it is in the last group where one can find the occasional gem, the memorable stanza, the well-turned phrase. The most famous of these poems, because of its notoriety, will always (and justifiably) be "Two Loves," with its celebrated closing line: "I am the Love that dare not speak its name." Murray also rediscovers for the reader a few other notable pieces. But, in spite of the handful of contemporaries who touted the "belief that Douglas ranked as a sonneteer with Shakespeare," a few clever lines and outstanding verses does not a master make.
   
   Murray does, however, raise a valid point. As with Douglas's life so with his poetry; the man was his own worst enemy even when it came to his literary reputation. While Douglas was threatening, cajoling, and suing most of his enemies and many of his friends, he also spent three decades inveighing (rather vituperatively) against modernism. Auden, Eliot, Isherwood, Pound, Yeats, H. G. Wells, D. H. Lawrence--he regarded them all as barbarians at the gates. His taste proved to be obstinately backward-looking, and his outspokenness not only brought into question the relevance of his own verse but also helped to reveal him as a bit of a dinosaur. In many ways, his verse was a hundred years behind the times, but had he been born a century earlier, his meager output still would have been eclipsed by the poetry of Wordsworth, Byron, Keats, Shelley, and even the lesser Romantic poets. Nevertheless, Douglas's life and his poetry are deserving of this valuable and refreshingly lively reassessment.

5 comments about Richard III: England's Black Legend.

1. This is an entertaining mixture of historical story-telling, scholary gumshoe work, and criticism. No aspect overpowers the book, which makes it an interestingly told history, and a well-shaped argument for Seward's perspective of Richard III's reign.

   Of course, so much of his work in the primary sources leads him to numerous conjectural qualifications. This state of affairs demonstrates why there is so much divergence of opinion on Richard III. However, if both Richard's contemporary subjects and their progeny have such a consistently malignant view of the man's rule, why go to such effort to rehabilitate (revisionize) him? It is obvious Richard's black legend is not solely a product of Tudor propaganda. The man simply did all the heavy lifting on establishing history's view of his reign.

   Seward's book is a good read. It's not a purely speculative, breathless narrative of "Maybe this happened, then that ... probably," but an argued case that approaches all of the sources in the field, primary and modern. This book has the potential to become the definitive history of Richard III and his reign; it simply lacks the appeals to cliched romanticism that surround much work in English history.




2. I got this as a result of seeing Ian McKellen's film version of the Shakespearean play. It left me wanting more History as well as more Drama. I had heard that Shakespeare was essentially writing anti-Richard propaganda, since the man who defeated him, Richmond, went on to become Henry VII grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. But while the truth is no doubt more complicated than the play suggests, Seward convincingly shows that Shakespeare got the essentials right even if he did take a few liberties. He doesn't merely elucidate the character of Richard himself, but of those around him. The Woodvilles, Ann, Catesby, Tyrell, Brackenbury, the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Stanley were all real players in Richard's rise and fall, well known at the time for their victimizations through or their contributions to his tyranny. (Catesby for example was known as the Cat in a popular rhyme of the day.) Seward gives an in depth though not necessarily complete view of the constraints and shared assumptions they were operating under which eventually leads to the characterization of the King himself. It's difficult to tell how much of Richard's tyranny stemmed from the bloodthirstiness of the times he lived in, or if good really triumphed over evil at Bosworth field, and Seward makes no assertions to that effect. But he does throw into sharp relief the flaws that earned Richard his bloody reputation, and they aren't saintly ones. He is also very clear cut about which primary sources he is drawing from, Thomas More, Dominic Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler, how they culled their information, and how he reads them. I'm sure there's a wealth of information on this subject, yet I found this book to be a very satisfying introduction.



3. While Seward makes some convincing arguments and successfully rebuts some Ricardian explanations, he does so in a horribly pretentious manner. He makes the constant claim that Richard was unpopular, which may have been so, but he does not bother to use reliable sources to prove it. He is also guilty of using the words 'obviously' and 'plainly' while not giving the reader any inication why he thinks these things are so obvious and plain. An example of this is found when Seward states, "When speaking of Richard, Commynes uses the word 'proud' more than once. Plainly he employs it in the sense of vain glory or self delusion. Had he known the word 'hubris' he would have used that too." Be that as it may, Seward does not offer any proof as to why he believes the word 'proud' is used to mean self delusion, and his assumption that the writer would have used 'hubris' hints of Seward's own pride and arrogance. This neglect to explain basic charges runs throughout the entire book, which makes it an almost unbearable read to one simply trying to find out the truth, rather than wallow in anti-Ricardian sentiment. Almost all historians of Richard III are guilty of writing from bias, but it is not usually so suffocating as this.



4. Reading this book is a good way to get to know the basic story of Richard III, and the related context of English history in the time of the "War of the Roses." To my mind, the greatest virtue of the book is Seward's recognition of Richard as a prince in the Machiavellian style: a ruthless, conniving tyrant. What is weakest in the book is the author's pronounced psychological naivete: even as he writes of Richard as an alert political strategist, willing to do anything to advance his own cause, the author interprets his attitudes and decisions as if they were being made by someone with average working-class values and education. Overall, though, the story is well-told, with a readable mix of engaging narrative and scholarly history.



5. I have been fascinated by Richard III since I saw on TV , when I was seven years old , the 1955 Laurence Olivier adaptation of the Shakespeare play.
   
   
   In this book , Desmond Seward makes a compelling case for his theory that Richard III of England was indeed a bloodthirsty tyrant who cut down all who got in the way of his Machiavellian ambition , that the traditional view of Richard III (outlined dramtically by Shakespeare) is very near the truth.
   The author believes King Richard to have been the cruellest tyrant to have ever occupied the English throne . Seward gives seemingly incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed murder his young nephews in the tower , shining a new light on the tragedy of these boys. He outlines how Richard almost undoubtedly murdered Henry VI and very possibly Henry's son too.
   His death brought to an end , a nightmare for England , not least for Richard himself , who seward believes to have been highly paranoid , and disturbed by psychotic episodes.
   
   
   Seward re-examines contemporary sources , and also Sir Thomas Mores life of the King , which contained much valubale information that Seward brought to light.
   He gives us a history of events leading up to Richard's seizure of power , after the War of the Roses , analyses of the key power players in the England of the time producing the picture of a 'peculiarly grim young English precursor of Machiavelli's Prince'
   
   Defenders of Richard III have criticized this work , but is undoubdetly a major component in shedding light on the life of Richard III and the England of the times.

No comments about The Real Oliver Twist: Robert Blincoe: A life that Illuminates a Violent Age.

5 comments about George III A Personal History.

1. Nice overview of the times. The fact that George III was just as determined to maintain the credibility of the British empire as that other George was at finding a way to separate from it. A renewal of the more believable story of 'mad king george'.



2. This very well-written and researched book provides a wealth of detail on the life of Britain's King George III and his family.
   
   The last British king of the American colonies, George III directed the ill-advised war against his independence-minded colonies. Long and terribly destructive, the war saw the defeat of George's armies and navies in North America. Still, having spent eight years fighting the Americans, the King quickly decided to lay the foundations of a lasting peace and friendship between the two countries.
   
   Hibbert depicts King George as a constitutionally-minded monarch and a competent ruler. Initially detested by his people, he ended his life and reign greatly loved. Certainly his greatest challenges revolved around his large and dysfunctional family and his fight with porphyria and insanity.
   
   "George III" is a scholarly work. Though not an easy read, it is an interesting one!



3. Christopher Hibbert is one of those historians that seems to write about everything. Peter Gay is another that comes to mind. Hibbert provides us a very readale account of George's life. The early years are a bit confusing keeping track of the lineage and order of succession in the Royal family. Many biographies of monarchs suffer from this problem because there are so many family connections to keep track of. Once we get past this point and the young george becomes king, the book starts to pick up.
   
   What becomes apparent is that George III was extremely fare and decent man for his time. We should have such politicians today with this kind of integrity! The emphsasis in this bio is on George's private life. His dealings with his German Queen Charlotte, his son and sucessor the future George IV, who was a continual source of stress for him. The chapters on his dealings with the colonies provided a much less bias account than one normally hears from most US historians. The King was willing to come to any reasonable settlement short of independence. This book shows how he tried to grapple with the American problem, but that it just got out of control.
   
   His dealings with the various parliamentry governments provides a classic example of how personalities shape governments. Petty likes and dislikes lead to complete policies that are often inane. Still, the British people stuck by their old George, espesically when the excesses of the French Revolution became known.
   
   The book gives a good account of some of the other Royals, including George IV, the Duke of York, etc. Most come across as aristocratic fopps and losers, but some manage to have some merit. Over all a great book which chronicles both the life and times of Georgian England. The life of George III was indeed that of England in its heyday. A great read for the time and persoanlities concerned.



4. I used this book extensively for a research paper I wrote on George III. This book does a great job at dispelling the myths about George III and his character.



5. Who was the English King at the time of The American Revolution? I dunno!!! Well, now I do know and, furthermore, I now know something about his private and public life before and after The American Revolution. He reigned for over 50 years and the last years of his reign were about 200 "short" years ago. One thing that impressed me was the sorry state of "the medical art" even in those days. Taking blood from sick people was supposed to cure them. Giving arsenic was supposed to cure certain ailments. Today, we are way ahead of these primitive practices....all we do is give medicines that are "poison" such as depression medication and cold medicine and "antibiotics" for viruses which have no effect.....and doctors do unnecessary surgeries frequently so they can get money from the naive and trusting patients. But, that's another story and another book! Read about King George 3rd; you'll find it interesting. Boland7214@aol

No comments about To the Arctic by Canoe 1819-1821: The Journal and Paintings of Robert Hood, Midshipman With Franklin.