5 comments about Queen Victoria: A Personal History.

1. As i read the book, i realized that Mr Hibbert was not going to give me a very good account of the Queen.He constantly talks about the Queen's changing moods, her dislikes for some of her prime ministers and her treatment of her servants.To me this things are a waste of time.Mr Hibbert fails to tells us how the Queen felt about the political situation of Europe in her time.The author very rarely mentions her views on the different wars England waged during her time. At times i felt like i was reading a gossip column on a supermarket tabloid.Mr Hibbert wastes too many chapters on things like her servants, dinner parties and the sort.The book is too tight since most of the times it covers the Queen's opinion of non-important things.



2. Christopher Hibbert has the marvelous ability to make historical subjects come alive. He succeeds again in this biography of Queen Victoria,
   
   This book is titled a Personal History, and that's really the focus. He turns the venerable monarch into a human being, with hopes, fears, heartaches, heartbreaks, a sense of humor, mood swings, petulance and even (gasp!) desires.
   
   Victoria's image (at least to Americans) is of the stuffy old monarch, unsmiling, and always dressed in black. Hibbert portrays quite a different picture - of a young woman who loved parties, dancing, and the affection of men. He also makes clear Victoria's physical passion for her husband, Albert. This is evident in the passage where, after giving birth to eight children, she is advised by her doctor not to have anymore. Her response was "You mean I can't have any more fun in bed?" Not what we expect from a Victorian!
   
   The portrait of a post-Albert Victoria is of a woman devasted by the death of her lover. Clearly the modern picture of Victoria comes from this stage of her life. However, this image is based on incorrect assumptions. Where we assume the stolid, frumpy queen arises from her belief in Victorian morals, in this book the picture is of a woman who lost her most precious soulmate, and whose last 40 years were a struggle against loneliness and depression, while bearing the heavy responsibility of being the most powerful monarch in the world.
   
   The book also vividly portrays the numerous characters in this remarkable woman's life, including Lord Liverpool, the Duke of Wellington, Disraeli, and Kaiser Wilhelm.
   
   Recommended to anyone with an interest in English history.



3. Once again, Christopher Hibbert has spun a wonderful biography that makes his subject come alive before you're eyes, and at times to allow the reader's imagination into the very shoes of Queen Victoria!



4. I really enjoyed the book, but it gets so wordy, that it has literally put my daughters to sleep. My only wish is that he would have relied less on letting us know who people were (titles, positions, etc.) and more on Victoria's personality and life. I did enjoy her love affair with her husband!



5. i guess growing up knowing you will rule england make you believe the world around you was there to please you.growing up her mother keep her away from other kids,turning into a grown up without being a child.when she finally broke away she was queen.then she married albert and nine kids later .after albert death she was in mourning that she wanting all around to share .she in later year became a very selfcenter woman who couldn't see other's point of view.

5 comments about Virginia Woolf.

1. I enjoyed the book, but have a fairly detailed knowledge of Woolf & her contemporaries. I think a new reader of Woolf & her work might get lost in the maze of essentially unexplained personalties & their relationship to Woolf & her circle.



2. I am taking this book slowly and am nearing the end. It is terrific and I find, on the days I take off from reading it, that I miss Virginia Woolf and want to go back to the "place" that is her life. I thank Ms. Lee for giving me a closer intimacy with Virginia Woolf.



3. Probably the best bio of Woolf we are likely to see for some time. Lee has succeeded brilliantly and gracefully in that most elusive and troublesome task of capturing the "spirit" of another human being and then conveying that without simplification or reduction. What is most moving is that Lee allows Woolf her complexity and contradictions, her courage and cowardice, her generosity and meaness, without indulging in a sort of inconoclastic glee in smashing received images of Woolf as victim or feminist icon (or any other of the several and various "Woolfs" to be found these days.) Lee's bio is a stunning feat of sympathetic imagination and rational scholarship which ranks with the other "best" bio of the last 20 years or so, Deirdre Bair's marvelous and beautiful "Simone de Beauvoir." I am grateful to both of these writers.



4. Of the many literary biographies I've read, only Peter Ackroyd's "Dickens" seems to me as "definitive" as Ms. Lee's terrifically compelling book. One finishes it with the sense, however illusory (see Janet Malcolm's extraordinary "The Silent Woman" for a convincing argument that it must be), that the Virginia Woolf found in its pages is essentially identical to the actual woman who lived and wrote and died. Anyone with even a slight interest in her must consider this book essential reading. I found it a real page-turner throughout its considerable length despite being unconvinced of Woolf's literary eminence (except for her sparkling correspondence) and finding her character unattractive (i.e. snobbish, frigid, a false friend, etc.) even by the usual standard for writers.



5. this is the best biography of Virginia Woolf to date. The book is broken into four parts based on four broad periods in VW's life: 1882 - 1904; 1904 -1919; 1919 - 1929; and 1929 - 1941. The chapters, however, are theme-based; for example, Chapter 15 is "Bloomsbury"; Chapter 19 is "War"; Chapter 24 is "Monk's House"; and Chapter 37 is "Fascism". This then serves as a wonderful reference book to go back to read about specific events (war) or themes ("Bloomsbury") without having to search through an index for disjointed entries. Of the four biographies I have read of VW (Quentin Bell's, Hermione Lee's, Julia Brigg's, and James King) I recommend this biography as the one to start. King, 1994, was willing to write more about her personal relationships (read, "sexual") and is a good follow-on.

5 comments about The Sisters of Henry VIII: The Tumultuous Lives of Margaret of Scotland and Mary of France.

1. Everyone knows about the six wives of Henry VIII but the two sisters of Henry are relatively unknown to most readers. These women were queens in their own right and the elder sister Margaret was the grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots.This is a side of Henry's family that is not familar to most history readers. The book is well written and does not spend an inordinate amount of time discussing the relationship between Henry and his sisters,Margaret and Mary. The focus of the book is on their lives and the marriages they were arranged for them in Scotland and France.Henry is shown as a brother who is most interested in the influence and power his sisters play in their roles in their adopted lands and in center of royal power. He is never far from advising them on what to do for the benefit of England and as their all powerful brother.It is not brotherly love just brotherly advise that he offers and that he also enforces on them. His knows his sisters are well placed and wants to make sure that his interests and those of England are reflected in his sisters counsel to their spouses who are the kings of Scotland and France.
   The book is well written and keeps the stories of the sisters separate and does not try to interweave these lives. I found the story of Margaret more interesting and turbulent as she was Regent of Scotland and had bouts with the Scottish lords which her grandaughter Mary, Queen of Scots which she would encounter later in the century.Also,her influence on history was greater than her sister Mary who lived briefly in France as Queen for less than three months when her aged husband died and she returned to England to live a fairly unevenful life as wife of Charles Brandon.
   I recommend the book to those who want to extend their knowledge of this period and also to understand the nature of arranged marriages of royals from different countries as religious changes were occuring.



2. This is my first Maria Perry book. Her research was/is great and very detailed. This is not just another dry history. She brings understanding along with facts to this story.



3. The book is just what I expected of it on what respects to the contents, I received it in Spain,in perfect conditions and in a very reasonable time.



4. Margaret and Mary were the daughters of Henry VII and the sisters of Henry VIII. When Margaret was 13 she was married to 30 year old King James IV of Scotland. They had several children, only one of whom James lived to majority. After the death of James Margaret was married to the Duke of Angus and had a daughter by him named Margaret. Unfortunately this marriage was not a love match and after many years they got divorced, and Margaret married again.
   
   Mary on the other hand was married to the elderly King Louis of France when she was 18. She was only married to him for several months before his death. Before she left for France thought she had gotten a promise from her brother saying that when Louis died she could marry whom she wanted. By the time Mary was back in England she was married to thrice married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffix. Because of some irregularities in his marriages (he had married a woman, divorced her to marry her aunt, then remarried his first wife) it was a while before the marriage was declared legitimate. By that time thought they were the parents of several children. They remained married for many years before Mary's death in 1536 after which Charles married one of their wards.
   
   While there are some parts that can be a bit boring, it can also be very interesting and very informative.



5. The title of this book is misleading. The sisters are mentioned in the book, but you really have to hunt to find much about them. And what got me off to a bad start was the second sentence of the introduction. Maria Perry says (and I'd like to know why she thinks ths----) that few people realize that Henry had two sisters. Anyone interested in the Tudors, and Henry especially, would certainly know he had sisters. This book's fatal flaw, however, is that it is just plain boring. I gave it three stars because there is certainly a lot of words in it, so Maria Perry put in a lot of effort, but frankly, everything in it has been written so much better in so many other books.

5 comments about Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII.

1. Excellent and entertaining book about the Queens of Henry the XIII. The best book I have read on this subject.



2. I have never been able to put a book down before on Henry the VIII and his wives. After struggling to finish this book of exhausting but uninteresting detail, I thought I would sell it on Amazon, a first for me. But then, after checking, I learned it was only going for 87 cents. Why am I not surprised?



3. There have been numerous books written on the lives of Henry VIII's wives both as a complete history and on an individual basis. Starkey's book is an interesting read if you want to have a very in-depth understanding of just how incredibly political each of his marriages were. There are complaints that most of the book is spent on Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn but in looking at the history of these two women, they were the beginning of the making of Henry as well as England's history to come. Catherine of Aragon has been painted in some books as being a complete victim to be sympathized with for the harsh cruelty of Henry while he pursued Anne Boleyn. Starkey is not the first to intimate that she was actually a political machinist in her own right but he likes to present himself as being the first. Catherine's situation is no different than any other woman's reaction to "the other woman" so to imply that Catherine was not so obedient and submissive as she appeared is merely to say that perhaps she was at one point but came into her own as she progressed as Queen of England. That's psychology 101. Regarding Anne Boleyn, there's really nothing new painted about her specifically but there's a great deal of information presented about the true complexity of the divorce proceedings. This is truly the first book I've read that goes into just how many people were involved, what they actually did and how the hand-offs took place from person to person. In other works, only the most prominent figures in the picture are brought to light. The other wives did figure prominently in Henry's marriages from a very political standpoint. However, many authors outside of Starkey have indicated that there is little recorded information on each the successive wives especially in regards to Anne of Cleves. The one extreme criticism I have for Starkey and all the other authors regarding Catherine and the "consummation" of her marriage is the supposed evidence. Starkey follows the same path as all the others. I was hoping to see something more plausible. Every author states that the marriage must've been consummated based on two points of evidence. Arthur's boasting the following day of marriage being thirsty work and that he'd been amongst Spain and Catherine's silence on the subject. Why is it that every author does not take into consideration that Arthur was a 15 year old boy who carried the weight of an empire and was expected to perform his marital duties and therefore may have bragged because he couldn't state the other possibility....that he didn't perform? Regarding Catherine's silence on the subject and the question of "why didn't she complain?", she was a born princess. What princess/Queen who was 17 years old, in a foreign land and married to a King would complain that the marriage had not been consummated? To do so would be the equivalent of denigrating and humiliating her husband and a nation. The question is always left that only God knows whether the marriage was consummated or not. I beg to differ. There is one other person who would know if Catherine was a virgin and that would've been Henry. He was not sexually ignorant when he made Catherine his wife and where were his boasts? I recommend this book more for the political information surrounding the wives and what raised them and who truly took them down. Henry may have had final say but his court was very powerful in manipulating him. This book points this out more than any other out there.



4. I agree with unsolved fan and J.A. Miller, this book was by far the best book about the wives of King Henry than any others I've read.
   Starkey presents facts in such a way as to keep the reader thouroughly engaged, and looking forward to reading the next chapter.
   This book is quite fascinating. I've learned so much more from Starkey's book than from any history course.
   I recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn some of England's history and, to enjoy doing so.
   I wish he had spent more time on Katherine Parr, who seems to have been the most influential in bringing about reform in the churches of that day. That wife, Henry's last, was probably the most interesting and of a deep-thinking mind, than all his other wives, except for Catherine of Aragon, his first.
   I also totally disagree with the popularity of Anne Boleyn, now, in the movie theatres. Boleyn was not as worthy of attention and study, as are Catherine and Katherine.
   READ THIS BOOK! You'll be glad you did!



5. I agree with another reviewer who felt that this book sets a tedious pace that is frequently bogged down by constantly rehashing the ups and downs of Henry's divorce trial, first from Catherine of Aragon's point of view and then Anne Boleyns. While the amount of material regarding Catherine of Aragon is enormous the writer does stop often to compliment himself (tasteless) and by the time Anne Boleyn comes on the scene the reader is exhausted.

5 comments about American Jennie: The Remarkable Life of Lady Randolph Churchill.

1. When I say this is not a flattering portrait, it is only because, at the end of the day, I don't think Jennie Churchill was a particularly good person. She was a bad mother--even by the standards of the day; she was an unfaithful wife; she was a spendthrift; and she was, in my opinion, rather clueless as to the real world.
   
   Any portrait of Jennie could not be flattering; she's famous for being infamous.
   
   Now, beyond the topic of the "real" Jennie, my major criticism is that this book is not well written. It's just not an easy read. The thoughts seem scattered and not in depth, the deeper nuances of Jennie's character and motivations were not explored, and overall, the book does not flow.
   
   I think the subject of this book is not to make Jennie look good. It's to shed insight on why she was the way she was. In that manner, I think by the somewhat disorganized storytelling, this book misses the mark.



2. American Jennie by Anne Sebba is the story of the incredible life of Lady Randolph Churchill. American Jennie Jerome fell in love with Brit Randolph Churchill in a whirlwind courtship. After overcoming parental objections on both sides of the match, the couple wed and quickly produced son Winston. But the romance faded soon, and both engaged in affairs. They pulled together to get Randolph into the House of Commons, but for most of the rest of their lives, they lived apart. Sebba digs through newspaper accounts, family records, diaries, and letters to produce this well put together biography of an unusual woman. Jennie was well known for her beauty and her indiscretions in a time when women were still considered a husband's property. She produced a literary magazine, helped get both her husband and son seats in the House, traveled extensively, and cared for her husband at the end of his life. Randolph, who suffered from syphilis, was a difficult man, capricious even before the disease attacked his mind. Sebba tries to defend and protect Jennie where possible, but even in the best of lights, Jennie was an atrocious mother who ignored her children. In the end, the picture that emerges of Jennie is of a woman determined to live life on her own terms. She produced children, but that didn't make her a mother. She was married, but was a better wife to her lovers. She lived very much in the moment, always in debt and buying Worth gowns. Sebba does her best to make Jennie likeable, and to an extent, she succeeds. Jennie would be a wonderful addition to a dinner party, but not someone you could count on as a friend. A couple of complaints: there are not nearly enough photos of Jennie. For such a famous woman, I'm sure there are many more out there that would have shown her recognized beauty to better advantage. Also, Jennie and her sisters spoke French, so they peppered their letters to each other with French phrases. Sebba also throws several in her writing. I don't know French, so I often felt a bit left out. Sebba easily could have included translations in brackets, because the meaning was usually not easily gleaned from the rest of the passage.



3. Great new book on a wonderful and timeless life. We own and have read the two volumn work by Martin on Jennie, but this is a fresh and well researched look at the times and people who shaped her son Winston's life. If this work interests the reader there is in Jennie's own hand her book, The Reminiscences of Lady Randolph Churchill. While not in print, it can be found on the used books websites.



4. American Jennie in the US, and Jennie Churchill in the UK - the mother of Winston Churchill - the title says it all. Anne Sebba has created a character who had to triumph in two countries. The method is simplistic, almost from a 1950s children's comic. The goodie is Jennie nee Jerome, from an American, and therefore liberated background. The baddie is her husband, Lord Randolph Churchill, from an English, aristocratic background. His supposedly becoming infected with syphilis early on in the marriage increases his badness. It gets worse when his career as a Conservative politician develops and he spends long hours in the House of Commons. Beautiful, well-dressed, extravagant, piano-playing Jennie is justified in taking a lover and triumphs as the heroine.
   
   Jennie is promoted as the engineer of Winston's success as a politician and world leader during the Second World War. Yet she died in 1921, when he was still in disgrace over the failed attempt to capture Gallipoli in 1915, which plan he had masterminded. It would be another 20 years before Winston, by then in his mid-60s, would become British Wartime Prime Minister. One would have thought that his wife, Clementine nee Hozier (Clemmie), who he married in 1908, would have warranted more credit by Anne Sebba for her role in his success.
   
   And what of Winston's younger brother John (Jack) Churchill? Ignored by Winston in his writings, as though he didn't exist he died in 1947 in relative obscurity. Anne Sebba has written Jack out of her biography in a single line. He was the illegitimate son of 7th Viscount (`Star') Falmouth. In other words he wasn't really a Churchill so neither Jennie nor Winston could be expected to take any responsibility for him. Winston and Jack are as alike as two peas in a pod, both Churchillian, both grandsons of the 7th Duke of Marlborough. Jack's two other children were John (Johnny) a well-known artist, and Clarissa, Countess of Avon, wife of the former Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden. Now in her 88th year, Clarissa has just written a very interesting book Memoir, published by Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Clarissa and her two siblings were in no doubt that their grandfather was Lord Randolph Churchill, even though Anne Sebba paints him as a mad syphilitic. What rot!
   
   I have it on good authority that one of the major copyright owners of the Churchill papers is so disgusted with Mrs Sebba's book that they have withdrawn permission of copyright. From the point of view of an historian, a true biography of Jennie, Lady Randolph Churchill, has still to be written. In fact, Elizabeth Kehoe's book, Fortunes Daughters, the story of the three Jerome sisters, Clara, Jennie, and Leonie, is a far better read having been more carefully researched. Also, while not perfect, look at Dark Lady, the biography of Jennie Churchill by Charles Higham, for a more balanced and historically accurate portrayal.



5. to me jennie churchill was a selfish ,pleasure seeking woman who only cared about herself.she couldn't wait to get nannies taking care her sons are puting them in abusive boarding schools.she as a wife was a marriage were she couldn't stay faithful or not keeping her husband in debit.to me why winston feeling of love for her i just don't get.his nanny was more a mother to him than jennie.

No comments about London Rising: The Men Who Made Modern London.

5 comments about Mary Queen of Scots.

1. Antonia Fraser's first biography still stands as one of her best. This is a sympathetic look at Mary who at a young age was used as a political pawn, raised not to be "Queen of the Scots" but to be Queen of France. After the Dauphin died, she eventually returned to Scotland as a stranger to the culture and religion of her native land. Though a strong women, she was easily led astray by her passions and her advisors. Her cousin Elizabeth I, offered Mary shelter after she was forced to abdicate her Scottish thrown. Instead of shelter, Elizabeth held her prisoner moving her from place to place to isolate her as much as possible. This is the first great read from Fraser.



2. Antonia Fraser's book, Mary Queen of Scots, is very readable and entertaining. However, the author's "hero-worship" of Mary and low opinion of English Queen Elizabeth I rings out loud and clear. Fraser makes history come alive; just be aware that this is her version of history.



3. Before this book, I'd only just gotten started on my Mary Stuart research, having only read two "semi-biographies"(Mary and Elizabeth by Jane Dunn & Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Darnley) of her. I was hesitant about buying the book because I read the reviews of it on here and it sounded ugly. But I'm very glad I did buy it, because now I am much, much better informed on the subject of Mary than before.
   
   I'm an Antonia Fraser fan, and this book is written in her usual poetic and heart-warming style. She is, I'd have to say, among my favorite historical biographers. She is clearly very passionate about her subject and I was able to sympathize with Mary throughout. Likewise, she is very good about referencing unlike her counterpart Alison Weir.
   
   I'd have to disagree with the reviewers who said this book made Mary out to be saintly. She is portrayed, in my opinion, as sweet and strong, but by no means perfect. There were times in the bio when I thought she was extremely foolish, and often times I was out and out annoyed by her. I agreed with Fraser's conclusion that Mary probably did not try kill her second husband, Henry Darnley and that it was a political set-up. I also agree with her about the Casket Letters. I'm on the fence about Bothwell. I think many of his actions are not at odds with a rapist and abductor. Likewise, I don't see how or why he would proceed to murder Darnley and just hope that Mary would marry him, which could mean prompt execution or life imprisonment. But I didn't mark this against Fraser, because I'm still trying to figure out what I feel on the subject, and also because she convincingly argued her side.
   
   
   I do take issue with a few slender things in the book. For one, I love Fraser's style, but I did find her constant use of footnotes distracting*. And I definitely agree with the reviewers who said it was biased against Elizabeth. Some of the commentary, such as sharp jabs at Elizabeth's beauty and lifestyle, were entirely editorial and completely uncalled for. Fraser degraded Elizabeth so hard at times that I felt her case for Mary might have been a little too weak. I've read several books on Elizabeth and none so far have made petty, out of place remarks about Mary and rightly so. Both were interesting, incredible women and one need not be knocked down at the expense of the other. This bio would have gotten five stars had there been a little more objectivity.
   
   
   
   
   
   *Most of them I felt could have been worked conveniently into the narrative.



4. amazing book makes you feel as if you want to be in that world most touching and amazingly well written with no bias and no dodgy facts very good choice of language



5. Overall, this is a well-written and well-researched biography, although not objective enough about its subject. I appreciated the beautiful writing and the thorough scholarship of this book, although in the end I could not share the author's unqualified admiration for Mary Queen of Scots.
   
   Ms. Fraser presents enough evidence to convince me that Mary probably was not involved beforehand in her second husband Darnley's murder, and that the infamous Casket Letters were probably forgeries or interpolations of other letters. She was certainly not prepared by her French upbringing to deal with the problems she found in Scotland, and was very ill-served by the brutal Scottish lords there, including her own half-brother.
   
   However, Mary apparently did willingly marry her husband's murderer, which cost her the love of her subjects; willingly fled to England even though she knew she was seen as a rival to Queen Elizabeth's throne; and later on became involved in conspiracies in England to overthrow Elizabeth, which virtually forced Elizabeth to have her executed. Even Ms. Fraser cannot explain away these naive and reckless actions, although she tries. Her bias towards her subject is rather obvious. I also shared other readers' frustration with the many untranslated French and Latin phrases, which slows down the reading for those of us not fluent in those languages.

4 comments about The Last Princess: The Devoted Life of Queen Victoria's Youngest Daughter.

1. This is pretty much what you'd expect - but no new information on the princess. Nothing I didn't know before, no new pictures I haven't seen before. Slow reading at times - I had to make myself finish it. A good effort, but nothing spectacular, and the writing style is dry and not very exciting. Princess Beatrice needs a good bio about her - but this isn't it.



2. Princess Beatrice was the youngest and least well known of the nine children of Queen Victoria. Born just four years before the death of her father Prince Albert, she did not experience the full rigour of an upbringing and education under her father's control, the only one of the family to escape what seems to modern eyes less raising a child than overwhelming it. Beatrice also seems to have avoided her parents' well known tendency to over criticize and over correct their other children. But Beatrice, as the youngest child, was the one chosen by her incredibly self-centered mother to be an eternal comfort and assistant after Albert's death and the marriage of her siblings. Forced into the role of secretary/confidante (and at times psychologist) to her mother when barely out of her teens, Beatrice developed a personality which was quiet, patient, and undemanding throughout the years during which her peers were getting married and raising families. She seems to have rebelled against her mother only once, when she fell in love with and insisted on marrying Prince Henry of Battenberg, who fortunately was also patient enough to agree to be part of Queen Victoria's household rather than establishing his own independent life. Prince Henry died after a decade of marriage, and Beatrice continued to be Victoria's secretary/companion until the Queen died in 1901. Even then Beatrice was not free from her mother, because she had been given the task of editing/censoring the Queen's journals, a task which took her many years and probably resulted in the loss of much valuable material about Victoria's true thoughts and activities, since Beatrice loyally destroyed the originals after making her copies.
   
   This nice, self-effacing lady would not have merited a biography had she not been born royal, but its good to have this one because it sheds light on a life which was lived in the shadow of a more forceful personality. Matthew Dennison writes well, if somewhat archaically (I do not recall running across the word "munificent" even once in a modern book, let alone twice!) There are many photos and reproductions of portraits that I had never seen before, and there are some good descriptions of Beatrice's four children: three sons who were to be even more obscure than their mother (one was a hemophiliac, a tragic reminder of the curse genetics placed on Victoria's descendants) and a daughter who became Queen of Spain (and the mother of two hemophiliac sons.) The Last Princess will make an excellent addition to any collection of royal biographies.



3. beatrice was last child of queen victoria and prince albert.after her father death,beatrice became a emotional phsycial slave to a self center and demanding mother .she was not allow to from freidship with people her age or talk of marriage .beatrice did finally find love with prince henry but had to fight her mother who did not talk to her for 6 month to married the man she love.lucky prince henry could put up with his demanding mother-in-law.they share happy marriage for 10 years and 4 childern until his death.beatrice return to being her mother secretary/companion until queen death.even after that she was in charge of her mother papers until her own death.



4. Princess Beatrice gave up her private life, her health and most of her happiness in order to be the secretary, confidante and companion of her widowed mother. Starting with the death of her father, Prince Albert, when she was only four years old, her life was a constant reminder of funereal gloom. As her older sisters married and moved away, Princess Beatrice became the Queen's slave in most matters public and private. Such was the Queen's paranoia that her youngest daughter might grow up and want a life of her own, she forbade all talk of marriage in front of the Princess, and punished the girl by not speaking to her for eight months when she dared to fall in love and announced her wish to wed. The marriage was only allowed to go forward, and the Princess forgiven, when the couple agreed to live with the Queen for their married life, with very limited travel (their honeymoon lasted only five days, and the Queen visited for two of them).
   
   I don't think I'd realized just how selfish Queen Victoria was until I read this meticulously researched volume. Princess Beatrice was a far more forgiving and patient woman than I could have ever been, and I veer between being in awe of her, and pitying her.
   
   Matthew Dennison's writing style takes a while to get used to - sometimes he moves back and forth in eras and you have to go back in order to determine just what time frame he's referring to. The text is at times dangerously close to "scholarly" and for this alone I give the book four stars instead of five. I do recommend it, however, for the insights it gives into this complex, frustrating relationship.

5 comments about The Lion and the Unicorn: Gladstone vs. Disraeli.

1. The Lion and the Unicorn is an interesting discussion of the decades-old rivalry between Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone in nineteenth century Britain. What struck me most, though, was the way it seemed to limit the discussion to domestic matters. Maybe Disraeli and Gladstone never bashed each other over their respective heads about India, Africa, the rest of Europe, the American Civil War, or the Suez Canal, but I doubt that they totally omitted these arenas from their rivalry, either. According to the book, all of their activities seemed to be limited to tariffs, income taxes, and voters' rights issues, mixed in with occasional dealings with Ireland. And there is much more discussion of Gladstone's penchant for prostitutes than there is of any matters that extended beyond the borders of England.
   
   The author mentions the fact that Queen Victoria strongly preferred Disraeli over Gladstone, but never really explains why. I suspect that it had much to do with how they handled issues that involved foreign policy, but it's hard to tell from reading this book. Or maybe I just missed the explanation.
   
   It is an interesting book, but probably a lot less interesting than it could have been.



2. This is a masterful book about two flawed but fascinating giants of British history. The story sets a fast pace through decades of political rivalry and extravagant backbiting between Gladstone and Disraeli, while also giving us well-rounded and reasonably sympathetic views of their personal lives. The author has chosen an episodic approach to telling his story, using set-piece events to move the narrative along and bring the protagonists into focus against the political world they dominated in the second half of the 19th century. In the end, it's obvious the author admires and enjoys Disraeli somewhat more than Gladstone, but then again, it's easy to see why: Disraeli is the seductive and magical unicorn to Gladstone's priggish (and yet perverse...) old lion. The writing is beautiful and tight and the storyline is perfectly paced. I sometimes finish a book, put it down and breathe a sigh of relief: I finished this book and wished for more. Well done!



3. Aldous' accessible, colorful account of the decades-long rivalry between the two pre-eminent British politicians of the 19th century will confound those comfortable with the popular ideological stereotypes of today. Disraeli, the founder of the modern Conservative party, employed wit and mockery in a manner more reminiscent of a modern, smart-aleck liberal, while the Liberal Gladstone married his high-minded social-reformer's agenda to a dour Evangelical outlook. Both men's strengths and weaknesses are on full display, and Aldous succeeds in avoiding the temptation to pick a favorite, though I have to admit that Disraeli seems to have been a far more likable individual (provided that you weren't pierced by a strike from his rapier tongue, that is). Together, the two men helped shepherd Britain through a demanding time and left the nation and Empire stronger, no matter that they loathed one another. If this fine book proves anything, it demonstrates that severe partisanship doesn't inevitably end in wholesale cultural destruction - a good thing to remember as the 2008 Presidential race percolates.



4. I thoroughly enjoyed this book! It read as easily as a novel. I wasn't familiar with parliamentary politics before reading this book, but that didn't get in the way of the drama of forming governments, jockeying for position, and all the other ins and outs of the Gladstone-Disraeli rivalry. Aldous takes the approach that the reader knows almost nothing about the issues and explains them from teh bottom up.
   
   If you have any interest in reading about the inner workings of the British Empire during the 1800's, this is a great read for you.



5. The overall style of writing was quite interesting and kept the pages turning. A look at the two of these very powerful men in a side by side comparison has been a long time in waiting, but the reader could benefit from more information about the period. Mr. Aldous does a commendable job of sticking with his thesis (the relationship of Disraeli and Gladstone), though it seems to be to the detriment of overall content.
   
   This book is for the veteran student of this period in history. The author assumes the reader already knows the basics of the period and of each character outside of their relationship - and rightfully so, because that is his intended audience. Early on he tells his audience of the volumes upon volumes already written on those subjects.
   
   The Lion and the Unicorn is not an absolute necessity for anyone adding this period to their knowledge base, but it is an entertaining and interesting bonus.

5 comments about Jane Austen: A Life.

1. I could not find a good biography of Jane Austin at any of our local bookstores....this item was exactly what I was looking for. It arrived quickly and in excellent condition.



2. Although there have been many biographies of Jane Austen, few of them are as good as this one. I bought the book both because I love Jane Austen's novels and because I had just read Tomalin's biography of Thomas Hardy (Thomas Hardy, The Time-Torn Man) and hadn't been able to put it down. It's easy to see why she is considered Britain's foremost biographer. Her subjects are fully imagined and consequently come to life on the page as real people, rather than remaining dry studies. In this book, Tomalin's approach is to take issue with the received wisdom that Jane Austen's life was remarkable only in that nothing of importance happened in it.



3. Claire Tomalin is one of the foremost biographers in the world today, in an exclusive group that includes Peter Ackroyd, David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and a few others. Having read and thoroughly enjoyed her recent books on Samuel Pepys and Thomas Hardy, I purchased this book to look at one of Tomalin's older works. I also knew next to nothing about Jane Austen. I was not disappointed on either count. The book is outstanding, and I am currently in love with Jane Austen.
   Jane Austen was a brilliant, witty, unsentimental woman who led a remarkably unremarkable life. One expects great writers to live dramatic lives, but this just isn't true in Austen's case. She had written her first three novels by age 24, but wouldn't publish them or write another for ten years. She would never get rich off of her writings.
   Though she certainly drew on characters and scenes in her own life, much of Miss Austen's novels come from her vivid imagination. For instance, Jane Austen didn't socialize with the rich upper crust, but many of her books are about them.
   It seems Jane was a bit of a tomboy as a youth, and her high intelligence and biting wit often intimidated potential suitors. She was apparently in love only once, and this didn't work out. So she became, like her sister Cassandra with whom she was very close, a spinster. At least she was able, in her thirties, to support herself through her writings.
   Jane Austen died young, at age 41. Thus her life, her career, and Claire Tomalin's biography end prematurely. But as Jane Austen herself wrote, "If a book is well-written, I always find it too short."
   This book ended too soon. It is a beautifully written biography, highly recommended.



4. Claire Tomalin in Jane Austen: A Life really delivers a wonderful story, not just a boring listing of events from the author's life. I've used this book for research before, and finally decided to buy it for my own collection and read it just for fun. I recommend this to anyone that has been curious about the author's life or any serious Janite.



5. 1997's "Jane Austen: A Life" is Claire Tomalin's highly readable, even dramatic account of the life of the popular romance novelist. Jane Austen left little for her future biographers beyond her published novels and some surviving letters and manuscripts. Tomalin addresses Jane in the context of her large and interesting family and their Hampshire friends and relatives. The result doesn't necessarily add a great deal to our limited store of knowledge about Jane Austen; it does provide some interesting insights into her context, and should bury forever any concerns about the source of Austen's acute understanding of human nature or the material for her novels.
   
   The good news about "Jane Austen: A Life" is that Claire Tomalin is a gifted writer and her book will be a page-turner for many fans. Tomalin has done her extensive research. In addition, Tomalin is not shy about speculating when it comes to the signficant gaps in our knowledge of Austen's life. Her speculation is generally reasonable and plausible, and almost always fascinating to read. It is less clear how much of the book is reasonable inference from the limited record and how much edges toward historical fiction.
   
   Tomalin includes her own literary criticism on Jane Austen's various works. This criticism is frankly hit or miss. Her comments on "Lady Susan" highlight its unusual leading character. Her analysis of the novel fragment "The Watson" explains why Jane Austen never finished it. However, she unfairly slights one of the main characters in "Sense and Sensibility", misreads the fate of Mr. Wickham and Lydia in "Pride and Prejudice", and perhaps misses the point of "Mansfield Park." Readers familiar with Jane Austen's novels can draw their own conclusions.
   
   Jane Austen is as vivid as Claire Tomalin can make her in this biography, a clever, acutely observant woman who must on occasion have been a little intimidating in person. She is very much a family person, at the beck and call of brothers, cousins, nieces and nephews all her life. We come to appreciation for how difficult Austen's life was after her father died. Her failure to marry lfet her, her spinster sister Cassandra, and her widowed mother in genteel poverty, dependent on support from her brothers and with few choices about where and how they would live. Unfortunately, Jane's writing did not begin to produce real income before her early death in 1817.
   
   "Jane Austen: A Life" is highly recommended as an interesting, even dramatic biography. The book includes an excellent selection of portraits of Jane Austen's family members. It is perhaps ironic that the one verified portrait of Jane Austen in life was said by her family to be inadequate, just as the person behind the novels continues to be elusive to biographers and fans alike.