2 comments about Elizabeth I (Profiles in Power).

1. This short book is a good summary of Elizabeth during her reign. It focuses on eight different aspects of her life: the throne, church, nobility, council, court, parliament, military, and her people. It is not very detailed. If you want quick information on the queen, this is the book for you.



2. There are too many biographies of Elizabeth I out there--thankfully this isn't one of them. The author purposely avoided another one, and instead focused on the evaluation of the way the virgin queen used her power. Elizabeth was the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty, and had to rebuild the country after the disastrous reign of Bloody Mary. This book shows how she effectively maintained control of the public, the church, the nobility, the court, the council, and the military, and tells us why Elizabeth was able to hold the throne almost 45 years.

   Again, this is not meant to be a biography, so this book assumes that you already have a basic knowledge of Elizabeth's reign. If not, you'll find yourself lost, but if so, you'll learn all kinds of stuff and find yourself looking at this English queen in a whole new light. If you're a student of Tudor England, this one's for you.

2 comments about Stolen Voices: Young People's War Diaries, from World War I to Iraq.

1. This collection of war diaries presents conflicts from World War I to Iraq through a lens not usually viewed - the writings of young people who are experiencing them first hand. These intimate writings relate the diarists' fears for themselves and their families and the anguish of losses they suffer. Yet each one also talks about their hopes for the future in a life without war.
   
   The insights into history are also fascinating, as many of the diarists relate the political perspectives of the war they're living through. I find it so interesting to discover what the people in a country were thinking at the time of a war as opposed to what their leaders were saying about it publicly. And I was pleasantly surprised to find each diary very well written and the stories unfolding in a way that kept a narrative story line progressing. This must be the work of editors Zlata Filipovic and Melanie Challenger, who chose which entries of the diaries to include.
   
   I imagine this work was particularly poignant for Filipovic, whose diary of wartime Sarajevo is included. A line from one of her entries sums up the sentiment that was a common thread among many of the diarists, "I simply don't understand it. Of course, I'm 'young' and politics are conducted by 'grown-ups.' But I think we 'young' would do it better. We certainly wouldn't have chosen war...."



2. This is a compilation of war diaries from young people, about 12-20 years old, in wars from WWI to present conflicts in Israel, Palestine and Iraq. The diarists are amazingly engaging.. One minute they are typical adolescents worrying about school or friendships, and then they are concerned for their lives, those of their families, and needs such as food, basic hygiene and human dignity. And often they are both typical and suffering at the same time, a fascinating interplay.
   
   If you know a young person who has met with serious losses in their life, this may be a difficult, but cathartic book for them to read. In our present time in the US, lives for many of our young people seem very simple and easy. Those who have experienced significant loss feel quite alone, as it seems that their peers have no worries beyond popularity, sports and grades. This book can help with that as they hear the voices of those who also, although very young, are dealing with difficult --- sometimes wayyyyy beyond difficult-- times. We hope and pray that this book help us all remember the horrors, not the glories of war, and renew our personal resolve to do what we can to work for peace and justice.
   Read it, and you'll find yourself thoroughly engaged in some other worlds. Yeah, it isn't a light or easy read... but you'll be glad you read it. Precious and painful.

1 comments about Edward the Black Prince: Power in Medieval Europe (The Medieval World).

1. This book attempts to place the life of the Black Prince in context with the rapid changes in Continental politics.The book is a success and is very readable,interpretive,(and short).There is also a chapter on the Black Prince's wife which was very interesting.She may have had as much influence as her husband Edward,although she is scarcely mentioned in other works on the Black Prince."The hand that rocks the cradle"?.
   There's also a chapter on the different types of plague which reduced Europe's population by as much as a third during this period.It would seem that the plaque actually gave the laborer/artisans more political clout,so possibly the plague was if not a good thing then maybe not a totally bad one.
   Also included is the Black Prince involvement in Parlaimentary shennanigans.Often royalty would side with the Commons against the Lords,and this took courage because a wrong move could send one to the block.
   A great chapter on the evolution of new weapons and their uses which put an end to chivalry somewhat.The author defines chivalry as a "code of violence",when and to whom to apply it.The long bow made the armored stampede cavalry charge obsolete.Joe the Butcher develops his muscle strength to "draw to the ear",by chopping meats.He overcomes the noble night Jean de(put your French surnames here),who has never been defeated in tournament.Jeans exquisite manners are overcome by Joe's creature noises.the world's turned upside down.

5 comments about Napoleon: A Life.

1. I found this book to be a useful introduction to one of history's most infamous icons. It is to be enjoyed as a vast overview of Napoleon's life, not as an in-depth account.
   
   The portion of the book I found most interesting was Johnson's theory regarding how Napoleon breathed nationalist life into the Germans. Until then, the Holy Roman Empire structure kept in balance a potentially dangerous people. When Napoleon turned away their talents from art and scholarship and towards military organization, the consequences were felt for the next 125 years.
   
   This book was not dazzling in style but was still an interesting read.



2. Johnson does a good job of channeling William Pitt, but a poor job of history in this tendentious, glib, shoddy, but, thankfully ,short volume. It is one thing to shy away from hagiography, quite another to omit facts or invent them to create a historical figure that did not exist.
   
   From the very first pages, Johnson proudly displays his biases. He views the French Revolution as an unnecessary "accident", and announces, without any supporting argument save England's example, that the inequalities it addressed would have been solved peacefully in time by history. The scholarship is extremely sloppy, and Johnson continually contradicts himself and gets his facts wrong. Her are but a few examples:
   
   He says Napoleon was not an ideologue, then proclaims him the progenitor of "a new brand of ideological dictator" like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
   
   He says that Napoleon "never seems to have grasped the essence of the English constitution", yet during the young Napoleon's school years, the text on which he made the most notes was a history of the English constitution. He also tried to bring the English jury system into the Code Civil, but was blocked by the Directory.
   
   He cites a M. de Remurat as saying that Napoleon "is really ignorant, having read very little, and always hastily." A glance at the reading Napoleon did while in school, the notes he took, and the memoirs he dictated at St. Helena, with their detailed knowledge of history and past political affairs, easily give the lie to this.
   
   He writes that Napoleon "did not understand [the sea's] true strategic significance", ignoring Napoleon's continued respect--and envy--of the British Navy, a service he once tried to join. That strategic knowledge is also what prompted him to deny England's demand for the island of Lampedusa, which Bonaparte knew would give the British Navy control of the Mediterranean.
   
   Johnson says Napoleon "took no notice of air power, though it was then much discussed", yet Napoleon noticed it enough to take balloonists on his Egyptian expedition.
   
   Regarding leaving Corsica, Johnson imputes to Napoleon the following: "So he asked himself , where does the nearest source of real power lie? And the answer came immediately: France." Napoleon was a ten year-old boy when he left Corsica, being sent away to military school. He might have been thinking of glory, more likely he was missing his mother.
   
   Regarding returning to Corsica, Napoleon, Johnson writes, "took no interest in the place once he had left it." Not only did Napoleon order numerous books on Corsica while in school, but he returned to the island in 1791 on leave, then petitioned the War Office to stand for election in the Corsican National Guard. He fought his first engagements as an officer in Corsica.
   
   He states that Napoleon, "made no lifelong friends at the college or the academy"--except for Alexandre des Mazis, who wrote a memoir about Napoleon. Interestingly, Johnson doesn't cite des Mazis, but he does cite Bourrienne's memoirs--which have been totally discredited.
   
   He says Napoleon retired after Toulon and "following his principle of going direct to where power lay, he went to Paris. " Napoleon did not retire; he'd been removed from the artillery and posted to the infantry, when, severely depressed, he moved into a cheap hotel on The Left Bank.
   
   
   Johnson tries his best to link Napoleon with the twentieth century's dictators. Indeed, it's the centerpiece of his thematic argument. Of the Italian Campaign, which he calls a "looting expedition", he writes that Napoleon's "technique adumbrated the Stalinist methods used in Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War." The Old Guard was "rather like Hitler's military SS division"--except for the fact that Napoleon's army liberated Jews, instead of murdering them. He cites all the Englishmen who hated Bonaparte and the few who didn't, like Keats and Shelley, who "fell for the propaganda", like "Shaw for Stalin, Mailer for Castro, and Sartre for Mao"! Bonaparte's "monumental schemes were like those of Mussolini and Speer." Yet Johnson offers not a shred of evidence to support his point that Napoleon was the progenitor of the 20th century's great dictators.
   
   (Johnson goes on at length about Napoleon's looting, never comparing it to other empires' spoils, say, for example, those inside the British Museum, which houses the Rosetta stone, discovered by Napoleon's Egyptian Expedition. )
   
   Johnson makes other broad generalizations, again without any support in the text: "The 19th century was in general a time of peace" or "The Revolution created the modern totalitarian state". His prose borders on purple: "He blew himself into the stratosphere of power from the brazen mouth of his own guns." But for the most part, the book consists largely of unsupported calumnies against Napoleon: "He was not a patriot either" ; "The Italians themselves he despised"; "He was not moved by sentiment ; "His sensibilities were blunt. His compassion was shallow." He had "an inability to delegate", which must have been news to those living in an Empire of 40 million!
   
   To Johnson, Napoleon's wives are portrayed as sexually dissatisfied, his marshals as writhing lackeys, his relations hapless rulers, and Napoleon himself a rapist.
   
   Johnson's enmity stems from his contempt for Bonaparte's militarism. He says that Napoleon "unleashed on Europe the most destructive wars the continent had ever experienced", and, "Bonaparte , having once unsheathed his sword, found it impossible to lay it down for long."
   
   But Johnson never once mentions the contribution to that outcome by England's War Party, which refused to make peace with France after 1800. Bonaparte "emerged from a political background where a man's word meant nothing, honor was dead, and murder was routine," and "William Pitt found ... that [Napoleon's ] word could never be trusted". But nowhere does Johnson mention that it was the British--and Pitt's War Party in particular-- who broke their word in the Treaty of Amiens when they refused to leave Malta after Napoleon had left Taranto. The best Johnson can muster here is "Both Britain and France, mutually suspicious, refused to carry out the terms of the treaty."
   
   These oversights are not for lack of space: Johnson spends three pages on Napoleon's wedding arrangement to Marie-Louise, scarcely a paragraph on the Code Civil. Maybe that's what led him to conclude that cultural displays were "the most successful aspect of Bonaparte's dictatorship." As for the Code itself, "Bonaparte did not create it" and "its apparent novelty was not new."
   
   There are a few bright spots: the last 50 pages give a decent rundown of the Spanish and Russian campaigns, but they can't save this Pocket Book of the Bad, Bad Bonaparte. There are no footnotes, no bibliography, but there is one saving grace--the book is less than 200 pages.



3. If you want a short and well researched overview this is it. Not long on battles, strategy, etc.



4. Rule of Thumb: Never! Ever! Trust a Brit to write a truthful account on Napoleon. The British have always written history to favor themselves or make themselves look good! All seven coalitions against France, organized to replace the Monarchy back on the throne against France's will, were all funded by the British. As Emperor Francis said after the battle of Austerlitz: "THIS BRITISH ARE TRADERS IN HUMAN FLESH!" This says it all! The millions who died in those wars can be squarely left at the doorstep of the British. Paul Johnson is in the business as a patriotic Brit, almost expected, to hate Napoleon, and tag him with the label of Tyrant and conqueror. Why? Because Napoleon didn't allow the Royal Familes of Europe to invade France and force a Governement upon then they didn't want? These were wars to Defend France from aggressive neighbors funded by a warmongering Parliament in London. This is bad history.
   I suggest reading:
   
   Napoleon : The Man Who Shaped Europe by Ben Weider and Emile-Rene Gueguen
   or
   The Wars against Napoleon by Ben Weider
   
   Better History, and much more accurate.



5. Paul Johnson has opinions. And he can write -- lucid, crisp, precise.
   
   Johnson sees Bonaparte as a selfish opportunist who took advantage of the Revolution to seize power. Once in office power was the only language he understood.
   
   Johnson blames the ambition of Bonaparte for a host of modern ills: the birth of total warfare, the rise of angry German nationalism, secret police, government propaganda machines, etc.
   
   He also blames Napoleon for ruining France permanently as a world power. It is hard to argue with his logic on this one -- before Napoleon France is Europe's most significant power for centuries. Since Napoleon France has always been second-rate behind Russia, Germany and Britain.
   
   I am amazed at how much Johnson can pack into one paragraph. And yet its an easy read.
   
   No pictured or maps, and only 187pp.

3 comments about Behind Palace Doors: My Service As the Queen Mother's Equerry.

1. This is a great insight written by a young military officer who was Equerry to the Queen Mother for 2 years. It's written with great respect and fondness of his experiences as her close personal assistant. A rare glimpse into the everyday life of the Queen Mother and her association and influence in the Royal Family. An endearing book that touches on her home at Clarence House, other members of her household, his duties, and describes her "little extravagences" like Lobster, strawberries in winter, champagne, and daily fresh flowers in all the rooms. He describes her other residences at Royal Lodge and the Castle of Mey in Scotland. Full of interesting little known facts and antecdotes. No scandals (she never had any)or unflattering gossip. You'll LOVE this book. Easy reading!!



2. Not quite below-stairs gossip nor entirely unbiased, either, this account of two years spent as an equerry to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, gives only a glimpse of her life and activities during the years when Prince Charles and Princess Diana were making headlines with their marital problems. The ghost writer who helped the equerry to write this book said, in his preface, that there were so many other interesting stories that could have been shared but, for a number of reasons, were not. I wish they had been, since several chapters chat about difficulties that staff members of other royal households face rather than staying on point. I'm sure the author was very relieved not to have worked for either Prince Charles or Princess Diana while their marriage was breaking down, but the key bits of intelligence that those chapters provided were that the Queen Mother removed herself from the battle lines early on and that Prince Charles has a nasty temper. The overall focus of this book is more about the duties an equerry to a member of the British royal family is expected to fulfill and less about the Queen Mother. Still, it's a good, fast read and provides an interesting view of the other members of the Queen Mother's senior staff and their little foibles.



3. Major Colin Burgess' book about being the Equerry to the Queen Mother from 1994-1996 makes a wonderful read. Real insight to what its like to be "behind the scenes" of Clarence House from someone close enough to see quite a bit. He does not reveal anything that isn't really already known about the Royal Family. In fact, he is quite diplomatic about the Royal Family, but what makes this book such a fun read is learning the little quirks and interests about the Queen Mother. It is sadly a bit of a quick read, but I enjoyed it!!

No comments about Abelard & Heloise: The Letters and Other Writings.

5 comments about Calvin Coolidge.

1. Usually, when I think of the obscure Presidents, I think of the one-term (or less) wonders of the 1800s: folks like Van Buren, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Garfield, Arthur and both Harrisons. These were men who are rarely remembered for any great acts, if they are even recognized at all. Perhaps because it was more recent, or maybe because the Presidency was a more powerful institution in the Twentieth Century, but there are fewer forgettable Presidents in that era. Harding, maybe Ford, and maybe Calvin Coolidge.
   
   Coolidge, known as "Silent Cal", often seemed like a man from a different era, which both worked for him and against him. To many people, his blandness had an appeal; it seemed to promise normality. It also kept him from being very forward thinking. In David Greenberg's brief biography of Coolidge (part of the American Presidents series), we learn that there was actually some substance behind that stoic exterior; not a lot, but some.
   
   Coolidge rose to power quickly enough, eventually becoming governor of Massachusetts, where he made his mark with his tough handling of a policeman's strike. In 1920, when the Republicans met at their convention to choose a candidate (back when conventions had more of a purpose than merely partisan rah-rah sessions), Coolidge was mentioned but it was Harding who got the nod. Coolidge got the second spot, and would rise to the Presidency upon Harding's 1923 death.
   
   Coolidge's tenure in office was more notable for his lack of action than any real deeds. Besides being a man who liked to delegate many of his responsibilities, he also believed in a very limited role for both him and the federal government. Fortunately for Coolidge, his six years in office were essentially crisis-free. Not so lucky was his successor, the philosophically similar (but temperamentally different) Herbert Hoover. Had the market crash and subsequent Great Depression happened on Coolidge's watch, he would no doubt have been as vilified as Hoover often was.
   
   Though Greenberg tries to make the argument that Coolidge wasn't that bad of a President, he only partially succeeds. Certainly, at best, Coolidge is merely average, not worthy of the respect paid to him by later admirers such as Ronald Reagan. Yes, things were prosperous during Coolidge's term, but his role in this was rather small (and he did nothing to avert the impending financial crisis). Greenberg's book is engaging and informative and relatively balanced; if you want to learn about Silent Cal, this is a good introduction to him.



2. My understanding of Calvin Coolidge was based on the conventional wisdom, and thus not that positive. David Greenberg presents a balanced view of Coolidge. Most importantly, he expains the environment and prevailing political philosophy and the personal values that combined to shape many of Coolidge's decisions and actions. That perspective paints a bit more sympathetic picture of a man who appears to have been judged based on a future, post-depression perspective.



3. The auther is functionally illiterate in economics or at least so blinded by his contemporary liberalism that he ignores the plain reading of US history. While the author considers the prosperity of the 20's the effect of preceeding Wilsonian "investment" (ie deficit spending) he ignores the effect of tax cuts under Harding and Coolidge. Is it just coincident that the economy prospers after the Harding/Coolidge, the Kennedy, the Reagan, and the Bush tax cuts? He also ignores the general productivity enhancements of the automobile, radio, and electricity, all products of private enterprise rather than government intervention
   
   The author is also inconsistent in that he repeatedly notes the broadly rising prosperity of an expanding middle class during the 20's then claims the Great Depression was caused, in part, by income inequalities. Nothing about the huge tax increases of Herbert "Wonder Boy" Hoover and FDR as well as the erroneous policies of the Fed that collapsed the money supply. While the relative stagnation of the farming sector is noted, the author doesn't correlate that with increased yields from tractors, rural electrification, and fertilizer. We just didn't need as many farmers in 1929 as we did in 1919 to feed a growing population.
   
   The stock market bubble is discussed repeatedly too and Coolidge critized for not taking the steps of Federal market intervention that would have surpressed the speculation. Yet the author notes the general opinion that the stock market crash had little to do with the general depression.
   
   The author is on firmer ground covering Coolidge's relationship with and use of mass media, especially radio and photography. Given the author's professorship in media studies at Rutgers, this should not surprise. Unfortunately, he also claims to be a professor of history. If true, woe be our college students!
   
   What saves the book from being a total waste of money is the character sketches of Coolidge and his wife. He does seem a genuinely admirable person. Even the author likes him.
   
   In summary, the book is prime example of the decadence of American academia. So immersed in their own liberal claptrap, how they can cash their taxpayer-funded paychecks is beyond my moral comprehension.



4. Near the end of his short biography of Calvin Coolidge (1872 - 1933), David Greenberg quotes novelist Willa Cather's statement that "The world broke in two in 1922 or thereabouts". (Greenberg, p.158) Cather was referring to what she believed was the watershed of the jazz age, with its increase in individualism, the pursuit of wealth or pleasure, and sexual activity. Cather disliked the claimed new jazz age world as did Calvin Coolidge, the president during much of it. Greenberg's study shows how Coolidge was caught between two worlds - the world of the late 19th Century with its emphasis on the work ethic, frugality, religion, and reserve and the world of the 1920s that Coolidge helped create. Greenberg's biography of Coolidge is part of the American Presidents series which has the goal of introducing Americans to our nation's leaders in brief, succinct volumes. Greenberg is a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers University.
   
   Calvin Coolidge was born to modest circumstances in Plymouth Notch, Vermont and learned the 19th Century values of rural New England. Coolidge also soon learned the nature of grief. His mother died when he was in his early teens and his younger sister died five years later. In 1924, during his presidency, Coolidge's 16 year old son died from an infection he caught on the White House lawn.
   
   Following his graduation from Amherst College in 1895 and admission to the Massachusetts Bar, Coolidge held a variety of elected positions in Massachusetts, culminating in the governorship in 1918. Coolidge came to national attention 1n 1919 for his handling of a strike by Boston policemen. He thus ran as the vice-presidential candidate on the ticket headed by Harding. With Harding's death in 1923, Coolidge became the 30th president. He was elected to a term in his own right in 1924 and famously declined to be a candidate for a second term in 1928.
   
   Coolidge was popular during his lifetime, but his reputation plummeted with the Depression and New Deal. President Ronald Reagan was a great admirer of Coolidge. With the passage of time, Coolidge's presidency has been examined afresh.
   
   There sometimes is a tendency to think about the presidents based upon their claimed place on some system of historical rankings. It is also possible to consider each president in his own terms, regardless of rating, to learn what that individual has to teach about the United States and about leadership. This seems to me the better way to approach Coolidge, and Greenberg's book does so effectively.
   
   Greenberg finds Coolidge's accomplishments as president "neither substantial nor enduring. Too many problems left unaddressed, mounted; too many causes languished unpursued. His constricted vision of his office crippled him." (page 14) Greenberg's conclusion remains supported on several counts. Coolidge's basically hands-off approach to the economy and his failure to respond to warning signals helped lead to, although they did not cause, the coming economic woes of the United States. Coolidge pursued an essentially short-term foreign policy whose limited achievements were brushed away by WW II. During Coolidge's presidency, a restrictive immigration bill was enacted. And Coolidge did not speak out aggressively against the Ku Klux Klan which enjoyed a resurgence during the 1920s.
   
   Greenberg also points out that "a president's achievement does not lie merely in the laws and policies he implements." (p. 14) Coolidge had many admirable traits. He brought unquestioned honesty to the White House following the scandals of Harding. Coolidge knew his own limitations, and those of his office. He would have been distressed by the "imperial presidency" of some of his successors. Coolidge inspired trust in the citizenry. He did not engage in scandalous accusations against his political opponents. Coolidge tried to work towards the public good, as he understood it, rather than towards the good of narrow interest groups. In his patriotism, personal religious conviction, and devotion to duty, he tried to bring the values of his youth to bear on an emerging community which saw these values in a different way. Thus, while Coolidge's presidency was not substantively a success, has character and his approach to the office deserve understanding and respect.
   
   Reading the biographies in the American President's series has helped me look for value in the achievements of the widely different people who have held this high office. Many of the assumptions on which Coolidge proceeded, such as his faith in laissez-faire economics, may well be questioned. But his probity, modesty, and commitment to public service remain inspiring. Thinking about Coolidge suggests to me that we need not accept Willa Cather's dictum that "The world broke in two in 1922 or thereabouts." We can try to find and realize the best of both worlds. And then proceed with our current world of the Twenty-First century.
   
   Robin Friedman



5. The author of this brief bio of Calvin Coolidge, David Greenberg, begins with an interesting quotation (Page 1): ". . .one of the first things [Ronald Reagan] made on entering the White House in January was to take down the portraits of Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman in the Cabinet Room and put up those of Dwight Eisenhower and Calvin Coolidge." This volume examines Coolidge's life and times and his work as President.
   
   "Silent Cal" was a competent but not very energetic or innovative president, according to this book. He often was rather passive in advancing his initiatives, in many cases not pressing hard when Congress pushed back against him. The term "hands off" as a presidential style seems to fit rather well.
   
   The book begins with his background, as he came from Vermont (born on the 4th of July in 1872). He learned the values of hard work and thrift and came to understand that one did not exalt oneself over others. Characteristics emerging while he was younger (Page 17): "For the rest of his life, Calvin would remain deliberate in his decisions, conservative in his temperament and ideology, and restrained in his personal style."
   
   His rise in the political world as a city council member, with his political taking off in Massachusetts. Over time, he rose to president of the state senate, lieutenant governor, and, finally, to governor. In the 1920 Republican convention, after Warren Harding's nomination, Coolidge ended up as Harding's VEEP candidate. And, with Harding's death, this rather unlikely person was sworn in as President (oddly enough, by his father, whom Calvin was visiting, given the oath by his father, because of his role as a notary public!).
   
   Then, the slim volume begins to examine Coolidge's presidency. At the outset, he had to deal with the emerging scandals from the Harding Administration (such as Teapot Dome). His presidency, according to Greenberg, featured a characteristic style (Page 60): ". . .there was a shortsightedness to Coolidge's preference for letting problems pass--not least because they sometimes didn't. The wait-and-see approach prevented Coolidge from pursuing the kinds of goals that can make presidents great."
   
   Some key features of his presidency. . . . For one, he was the first president to begin to exploit media (whether print or radio). For another, he tended to avoid much regulation or interference from government of the economy. Given the healthy economy during his term and a half in office, voters were pretty happy with his stewardship. His proposed economic policy featured tax cuts, tariff changes, limited regulation on business, and so on. Often, he had to work with a Congress that was not overly sympathetic. Sometimes, he appeared to display apathy in trying to convince Congress to advance his policies.
   
   The book also notes the family tragedy of his son's death. Some researchers (such as Robert Gilbert) believe that this was so devastating that it enhanced his rather passive perspective toward office even more. Greenberg does not necessarily subscribe to that view, as he sees much consistency between his truncated term and his full-term after his election in 1924.
   
   The book finishes by exploring the extent to which Coolidge's policies may have facilitated the financial crash and the Great Depression. Greenberg's analysis makes a fair amount of sense here.
   
   Overall, another good entry in the American Presidents series. . . .

5 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. A perfectly adequate biography of this rather sad princess, who got the best of her mother at least in being allowed to marry & thus living a richer life than might have been. Otherwise the shame is in her destroying so much of personal letters of Queen Vic. I enjoyed the book. It was worth it if you're interested in Royalty & I am...of Victoria's children & grandchildren & down yet another generation. Not so much the present Royals.

5 comments about Diary of a Provincial Lady.

1. This was a simply written and quite charming novel. Whilst it did give an insight into the lives of a moderately wealthy English family in 1931, it lacked plot and real structure and for this reason I am unlikely to read more by this author at this stage - especially when there are simply too many other great books out there to read. A gentle, easy read but a little disappointing.



2. I reread this every year or two, and love it each time. Admittedly,a product of its time and place, capturing life among the genteely-poor gentry in an English village between the wars(WW's I & II). The diary format makes the provincial lady's narration of and commentary on the events around her doubly funny, as she struggles to run her household and not be driven crazy by nice but dull husband, snobbish wife of husband's boss,disputes among servants,quandaries about children, etc.--and to find time to keep a sense of herself as a professional writer. Not deep, but funny and often touching.



3. Am determined to write impressions from this book in the style of "the Provincial Lady" herself. Am doubtful however as to the outcomes of this effort as my highest labors would not reach the dry frank witticism she displays.
   Provincial Lady does her best to satisfy the wishes of silent husband (... "Robert, this morning, complains of insufficient breakfast. Cannot feel that porridge, scrambled eggs, toast, marmalade, scones, brown bread and coffee give adequate grounds for this, but admit that porridge is slightly burnt...."), intimidating cook, beloved children (... "Robin - whom I refer to in a detached way as "the boy" so that she shan't think I am foolish about him..., "Vicky,.... Enquires abruptly whether, if she died, I should cry?"), Mademoiselle (the nanny), Gardner and all kinds of friends and neighbors including the tiring Lady Birkenshop, "our vicar's wife" and the hated Mrs. B. ("query: Is not a common hate one of the strongest links in human nature?... answer, most regrettably, in the affirmative.")
   This is the same women world. Husband is as usual quiet and does not give any consolation and the Lady struggles to please everyone and not forget herself and her own wishes (and health) on the way. How very sad to discover it was the same (woman) world even 70 years ago ... Book is so very candid and manages to capture the ever lasting nuances of human behavior ("Mem: Candid and intelligent self examination as to motive, etc., often leads to very distressing revelations...."), little lies, social pretenses and the day to day struggles. Funny and entertaining yet can be tiring at times - since the day to day life is indeed tiring . Very very British and thus charming.



4. This charming book was written in the period between the wars, and tells of the daily trials and tribulations of the Provincial Lady - dealing with the servants, nosy neighbours, the horribly snobbish local 'upper class', the husband who hides behind the paper. Always told with style and wit, we observe life for the lady in question as she tries to balance the accounts (never a success - where does it all go?), help out at the local Women's Institute, keep her wardrobe up to date and deal with such important issues as modern parenting, keeping one's brain active when living outside of London, and the delicate balance of letting the husband know not too much or too little.

   The stand-out thing about this book is the character descriptions and her take on everyday life. If anyone ever tells you people were much nicer/politer in the good old days, just refer them to this book, which shows that there was just as many selfish, impolite, venal, self-centred and downright rude people in the 'good old days' as there are today. We just need to hope that we can deal with them with as much style and aplomb as the Provincial Lady would.




5. According to her, this is a single volume that contains "The Diary of a Provincial Lady" ONLY. The editorial review from Amazon states that this edition also includes several sequels. Apparently it does not. Still worth the price, according to Mom; she found it absolutely delightful.

4 comments about John Maynard Keynes: 1883-1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman.

1. This book is Skidelsky's one volume abridged version of his previous three volume biography(1983,1992,2000)on J M Keynes.Skidelsky successfully weaves all of the different aspects and strands(personal,familial,historical,social,political,economic) of Keynes's life into a beautifully constructed historical tapestry that will keep the reader's attention from the first page to the last.All of the different talents Keynes possessed and displayed during his lifetime come alive on the pages of this book.Skidelsky is the master of his material as long as he concentrates on the vast nontechnical aspects of the life of his subject.Skidelsky has clearly mastered the historical and chronological events and interrelationships that occurred during Keynes's life. Unfortunately,Skidelsky does not have the necessary formal training in mathematics,logic,statistics or probability in order to properly understand or assess any of those parts of Keynes's scholarship that involves the use of formal logical and mathematicalmethods or analysis.These technical deficiencies in Skidelsky's academic training are the main defect,not only in this book but in the entire corpus of Skidelsky's writings on Keynes going back over 30 years.I will concentrate on Skidelsky's error filled statements concerning Keynes's A Treatise on Probability(1921;TP) and the logical theory of probability.On p.95,Skidelsky conflates the principle of indifference(poi) with the principle of insufficient reason.They are not the same.Keynes's poi requires a balance or symmetry of the relevant,available evidence or factors involved before equiprobabilities are assigned.The poi can't be applied if there is no relevant evidence.Advocates of the principle of insufficient reason,on the other hand, argue that equiprobabilities can be applied in states where no relevant evidence exists.Keynes always rejected this kind of reasoning.Skidelsky bases his assessment of Keynes's logical theory of probability on the error filled work of A. Carabelli and R.O'Donnell.Carabelli and O'Donnell base their assessments of the TP on four sources:1)Keynes's introductory guide to the measurement of probability in chapter III of the TP;2)F. Ramsey's 1922 book review of the TP in The Cambridge Magazine;3)F.Ramsey's 1926 book review of the TP in his article,"Truth and Probability",published in 1931 in a book of articles;and 4)Keynes's 4 page eulogy and very brief review of the book in 1931.In chapter III,Keynes had already made it clear to the alert reader,who had a mind of his/her own (and would not ape the preposterous ,nonsensical claims made by F. Ramsey that by nonnumerical and nonmeasurable Keynes meant that numbers could not be used in general to estimate probabilities,i.e.,that Keynesian probabilities were like a surveyor assigning nonnumerical heights to a mountain hidden in the mist)that the vast majority of Keynesian probabilities used in common discourse were/are interval estimates.John Maynard Keynes is the originator and founder of the interval estimate approach to probability.Keynes spells it out in a number of places in the TP:"...we judge that the probability of the actual argument lies between these two(numbers;reviewers note).Since our standards,therefore,are referred to numerical measures in many cases where actual measurement is impossible,and since the probability lies BETWEEN(Keynes's emphasis)two numerical measures..."(1921,p.32).After warning the reader not to reach any conclusions based on chapter III alone until after Part II of the TP was reached(p.37),Keynes gives his definition of nonnumerical in chapter 15 of Part II on p.160 of the TP.On pp.161-163 and pp.186-194(ch.17),Keynes presents his approximation approach .It has nothing to do with ordinal rankings(see Skidelsky's queer claims on pp.284-285,for instance).An upper bound and a lower bound are specified for some 13 worked out probability problems.One of these problems(a revision of Boole's problem 10)is then made the foundation for Part III of the TP.Part III is then made the logical foundation for Part V. Carabelli's and O'Donnell's "reading" of Keynes's TP is very poor,at best.Skidelsky's conclusions,based on their very poor reading,are very poor.Skidelsky also appears to have been misled by Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson into believing that Keynes was a strictly literary economist, who was a poor mathematician by 1927. Supposedly,Keynes had never taken the twenty minutes that was necessary to understand the theory of value(microeconomics).Based on these bizarre beliefs,Skidelsky comes to the queer conclusion that Keynes deliberately refused to present any formal mathematical model of his general theory in the General Theory(1936;GT).Any mathematically trained reader can find Keynes's completely worked out model,with the results presented in the form of elasticities so that a reader of the GT can compare Keynes's results with those of A C Pigou,in chapters 19,20,and 21 of the GT.Keynes then compares and contrasts his model with Pigou's model,who had also presented his results in the form of elasticities, in the appendix to chapter 19 of the GT.A technically trained economist should purchase a copy of the GT instead of this book.



2. Anyone who has taken a course in macroeconomics knows who Keynes is. Economics is full of camps, conflicting doctrines, feuds, rivalries, etc. Keynes was unique in that, unlike other economists who are indoctrinated or are in love with a theory, he was never scared of giving up an idea that did not work. If one was to read his "Tract on Monetary Reform" one might be fooled into thinking that it was Milton Friedman that was writing and not the J.M Keynes who revolutionized economic thought with his General Theory. This pragmatism is what sets Keynes apart from every other economist. But why Keynes was so different from others is something students never learn. This biography does an admirable job of tracing Keynes' upbringing, his education, career, and contributions in the light of circumstances that Keynes lived through and shaped his ideas. It is also full of nuggets about Keynes' idiosyncracies which humanizes the biography and shows the real person behind the aura. The book is long, but 63 years of action-packed life requires such detail. The Chinese say, May we live in interesting times. Keynes certainly lived in interesting times with the result that this book is just as interesting.



3. This tome (including more than 100 pages of notes and indices) is an abridgment of author Robert Skidelsky's original three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes. It is in all respects an extraordinary work. The author offers a portrait of Keynes not only as an economist but also as a philosopher and a statesman. He does not segregate these three dimensions, but rather shows how they interpenetrate and inform each other. He sets Keynes in the context of his time and circumstances. Skidelsky is unsparing in his treatment of the inconsistencies and contradictions in Keynes' life and character, but he is fair and balanced; he avoids sensationalism even in the treatment of the sensational. getAbstract finds that this book merits multiple readings and should intrigue not only economists but also anyone interested in the ideas and events of the 20th century.



4. I have been looking forward to reading a bio of the great economist, philosopher and trader and bought this book after seeing many positive comments. Sorry to say, I got bogged down very quickly. The author never misses a chance to blow up to 2 pages what could have been said in a single paragraph. The book is a like sea-going ship so overgrown with barnacles that it can no longer move forward.