4 comments about Diana Remembered 1961-1997 (Diana Princess of Wales).

1. THIS BOOK PAYS TRIBUTE TO THE WONDERFUL PRINCESS OF WALES, PRINCESS DIANA. I THINK THIS BOOK IS A GOOD BOOK TO READ. IT EXERCISES YOUR MIND, AND YOU ARE ABLE TO READ FREELY. IT'S NOT LIKE OTHER BOOKS WHERE YOU WANT TO TAKE BREAKS ALL THE TIME. NO THIS BOOK, YOU NEVER WANT TO PUT IT DOWN.



2. This book is filled with many large color photos showing the happy times in the life of the Princess of Wales. For true blue Diana fans the pictures have all been seen before but are of high quality and worth seeing again. The text is done so that every part of her life is looked at ( even her final resting place ). None of the writtings are very long and all done by different writters who knew and liked her. The book ends with qutoes about Diana, some even made by herself. Overall this a good book, one that any Diana fan would like to own. It should also be noted that all royalties from the book go to the Diana Memorial Appeal which helps victims of anti-personnel mines( a cause she loved to help).



3. This is a book which I truly liked for many, many reasons. First, for all die-hard Diana fans, like myself, it covers every aspect of her life. Second, there are are selections about Diana, Princess of Wales, which are not long, but get to the point. Third, each story is accompanied by beautiful pictures of Diana. Last, but probably best of all, the book was put together by people who covered her services and, unlike so many others, donated all royalties from the sales of the book to the DIANA MEMORIAL APPEAL.

   "W. F. Deedes has had a long association with the DAILY TELEGRAPH as writer, columnist and former editor, and was a personal friend of the Princess."

   "The contributors of this book Sandra Barwick, Caroline Davies, Elizabeth Grice and Colin Randall are all senior staff journalists on the DAILY TELEGRAPH and were part of the reporting team covering the events in the aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales."

   I shall close with a few of my favorite quotaions from the book. "Her beauty was her triumph, her mark of courage and her ability to accommodate her own sorrows. That, instinctively and perhaps subconciously, is why people loved her: because she had come throught and in the process had grown into someone quite different and much larger than the person she had been before. In some ways some of us have never recognised before, we loved her." ADAM NICHOLSON in the TELEGRAPH. page 117.

   "You could not do my work and I could not do yours. We are both working for God. Let us both do something beautiful for Him." MOTHER TERESA page 118.

   "I want to walk into a room, be it a hospital for the dying or a hospital for sick children and feel that I am needed. I want to do, not just to be." DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES, page 118.

   "If I should die and leave you here awhile,/ Be not like others, sore undone who keep/ Long vigils by the silent dust and weep./ For my sake - turn again to life and smile,/ Nerving thy heart and trembling hand to do/ Something to comfort other hearts than thine/ Complete those dear unfinished tasks of mine/ And I, perchance, may therein comfort you."/ A poem by A. PRICE HUGHES which was read at Diana's funeral by her sister LADY SARAH McCORQUODALE. page 120.

   This is a hardback book which consist of 120 pages and measures 9"x111/4".




4. It's been a while since I've read it but the preceding reviews seem to tell it like I remember the book being. You read some reporters reminiscing about Diana, especially towards the last, and you see some good photos.

3 comments about Germans: The Biography of an Obsession.

1. My father handed this to me when I left to live in Germany ten years ago. My entire experience of the country turned out to be colored by Bailey's mixture of autobiography and profound linguistic and historical knowledge. This man knows the peoples and history of Central Europe inside out, to a degree that one can only envy. The book veers back and forth: from tiny specific details of Bailey's own experiences in military intelligence in the Second World War (and his life in a German family afterwards), to sweeping views of what the German national character is and how it came to be. It's all written in a clear, vigorous style, sort of like George Orwell as a bon vivant. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the subject.



2. I just re-read this book for the first time since I was living in Berlin, Germany (S.O. 36) through most of the 80's. (My copy of this book is a dog-eared Avon paperback, fallen to pieces and carefully saved by means of rubber bands.) Like the book's author, I am multi-lingual (German, Dutch, French, with some Spanish, Wolof and Eve). So, his attempt to get more understanding of Germans from the German language itself makes all the sense in the world to me. I also appreciate his notion of what he calls the "polyhistor." This is the only book in which I've seen this term. I recommend the book highly, but it is not easy reading (pleasurable, yes, but not easy). I doubt that I could get any of my engineering friends (I am also an engineer) to read it, because they wouldn't get the jokes. You almost have to have lived in Germany, as he did and I did, for it to make any sense.

   I wish this book were back in print, just as I wish Charles Beard's books were available. It repays the effort of reading it, something that can't be said of many books these days.




3. Growing up as an "Auslandsdeutscher" (German raised in foreign countries) I early on came to understand that NOBODY understands the "Germans," not foreigners with their cultural/ethnic/political biases (even if they are positively inclined), much less the Germans themselves with their "unbewaeltigte Vergangenheit" (unprocessed past).

   So, it was amazing to find that the person who got closest to the German essence, soul, substance, what you will, was someone who discovered the people in his adolescence and then pursued this interest into adult life. His view is loving and critical at the same time, as it should be. That he is of Celtic ancestry surely helped him in acquiring insight, because I have found tremendous parallels between the two peoples. 'Nuff said - I'll be accused of something....

   THIS BOOK SHOULD BE RE-ISSUED !!!...

5 comments about Mad Dog: The Rise and Fall of Johnny Adair and 'C Company'.

1. THIS IS A GOOD OVERVIEW OF NORTHERN IRELAND DURING THE 80'S AND 90'S.IT GETS GOING GOOD WITH MR. OR SIR ADAIR AS A GLUE SNIFFING SKINHEAD AND THEN ROLLING ONTO HIS RAVE DAYS AND OF COURSE HIS SHOOTING,ROCKETING AND PILLAGING OF CATHOLIC NEIGHBORHOODS.
   THIS BOOK SHOWS THAT WHEN A MAN IS DEEPLY INSECURE AND TOTALLY UNTRUSTWORTHY AND ALSO HAPPENS TO HAVE ACCESS TO WEAPONS,THINGS GO FROM MANIC HIGHS TO DEPRESSIVE LOWS IN A FLASH. I MUST SAY I WAS DISGUSTED AT THE PETTY AND BRUTAL BEHAVIOR OF THESE SO CALLED COMRADES IN ARMS. THIS BOOK USES SEVERAL OF MR. ADAIR'S FORMER FRIENDS TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT SAD AND TRAGIC PEOPLE THEY WERE AND ARE, FOR BUYING INTO "THE ADAIR MYTH". A WELL DOCUMENTED AND YES "MUST READ" FOR THOSE WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE WILD WILD WORLD OF BELFAST DURING THE TROUBLES.



2. This is a brilliant book charting the rise of an Ulster freedom fighter, not "terrorist" as D.A.Leonard ignorantly puts it. Johnny Adair fought for the U.F.F. (Ulster Freedom Fighters)and anyone doubting this can check for themselves whether it was Northern Ireland wanting control of more land or whether it was in fact Southern, Republican Ireland (IRA) wanting control of more land. D.A.Leonard, an American with seemingly no links with the country in question claims that the "aftermath of the war which saw Sinn Fein and the IRA grow in power, while the UDA disentigrated into drug dealing and feuds". Again if you check the details you will find that the IRA is now considered Europe's largest criminal gang, being linked with guerilla warfare training in Columbia, the worlds largest ever bank robbery (in which senior Southern Irish politicians were linked with money laundering)and you will see that Johnny Adair is in fact a freedom fighter.I find D.A.Leonards review, highly offensive and false and hope that this book and my review serve as a counterweight to D.A.Leonard's propaganda, from someone with a blood link to the country(ies) in question. My personal view is that the borders that are currently set should stay and that Sinn Fein and any other Southern party should not be allowed to run in Northern elections and vica versa. I highly recommend reading this book for a more specific background.



3. Johnny Adair is an example of what can happen to individuals when they grow up in a society utterly debased by sectarian hatred and bigotry. A man devoid of virtually any sympathetic qualities, Adair nonetheless became a hero figure amongst the loyalist community in Northern Ireland in the early to mid 1990s, following his involvement in a series of brutal and utterly indiscriminate murders.
   
   This book does an excellent job at exposed Adair as a politically uninformed egomaniac, motivated by little more than a burning sectarian hatred for Roman Catholics, and lays bare the emptyness of his UFF C Company's ideology and tactics. So debased were Adair and his associates that the more prosaic vices of drugs and extortion gradually came to mean more to them than even the thrill of sectarian murders, leading inevitably to Adair's exile by his erstwhile colleagues in the UDA.
   
   The dry tone of this book means that it is often a grinding effort to get though it, as we go from one senseless murder to another. Nonetheless, it is immaculate in its research and the sheer nihilism of Adair and his gang is evident in every page.



4. Before i start my review i will start with the things which do it an injustice thus making it a probably flawed book.The book starts with the author offering his sincerest gratitude to the members of c-coy for giving him the time to speak to them,How in gods name could any author be thankful and to print it in his book to these scum who commited such terrible deeds is beyond me.Jackie legs robinson why is there so much time givin to her she went out with john adair and took drugs with him yet her every word has obviously been taken as fact by the authors.When you come to the end of the book you are left wondering how for the five or so nightmarish years in the early 90s that adair planned everything was he able to get away with it,This book dosent delve into it but surely another book on this matter in years to come will resolve the matter cause im my mind to get away with what he did was near impossible (Adair had to have had help from special branch plus the front cover will turn many off from reading a book that should be read it is not a glorification of johnny adair it delves into there planning of murders the vast majority being innocent of any republican connection ie..Chemist workers,Pizza delivery people,There is not many books that a brought a tear to my eye but this at times did.It is a shocking intro into the murky loyalist world who started with the killings of dozens of innocent catholics and ends with the loyalists turning to drug dealing and there guns on each other.. Only for the negatives it could have been as good as martin diLlions account on the equally if not worse than the c-coy the shankill buthcher's.



5. "Freedom fighter"? Get a grip BH! Adair is a nihilistic, callous, murderous thug whose only interest in life was his own gratification. Not for him the thoughtful and pragmatic evolution of others from his background like the late David Ervine who, whilst not repudiating their former actions, at least came to recognize their continuing futility and the necessity of engaging with republicans if any kind of normal society was to be in Northern Ireland's future. I fail to see the logic in your assertion that the criminality of former IRA men proves that Adair is a freedom fighter. A drug-dealing murderer is a drug-dealing murderer, no matter what side of the peaceline he is from. Adair and his republican counterparts are equally contemptible.
   As for the input of Dublin and nationalist parties in the affairs of the six counties - get used to it! Craig's "Protestant Parliament and Protestant State" is long gone. I fail to see how denying nationalists, whether or not they vote for 32-county parties, a say in the affairs of government will help Northern Ireland to continue to exist as a statelet. And look on the bright side: Dublin is now going to be footing part of the bill for mundane stuff like road-building in the six counties. And I wouldn't worry too much about the border: in 1998 people on both sides of the border overwhelmingly voted to keep the border as it is... until the majority of people in Northern Ireland decide otherwise! You can't really object to that, now can you?
   The book was a great read, BTW. Picked it up in Shannon Airport the other day, haven't put it down until I finished it today.

1 comments about Diana, Princess of Wales: How Sexual Politics Shook the Monarchy (Diana Princess of Wales).

1. I'm not quite sure why I decided to purchase this book; ...I thought this would provide a different look at an exhaustively covered subject.

   First, I would not recommend this book to a "casual fan" of Diana. There is some deep reading here, it's not a book that can be skimmed and understood. You have to *read* it. ...

   Ms. Campbell seems to pull much of her book from other sources, with extensive quoting being quite a bit of what you are reading. She then takes these quotes and excerpts and adds her interpretations and opinions. Sometimes these were spot on, other times I felt that she was stretching a bit to prove her point. I also feel that the title is somewhat misleading; the book wasn't entirely what I expected. The author's repetitive claims of Diana being "penetrated" by the media's cameras, the world's eyes get rather boring and made for some eye-rolling on my part. There is no doubt that the media were invasive to Diana, but I also believe she played them at times--it was a give and take. Maybe if I were a "feminist" I would be more inclined to agree with this observation.

   There is some fascinating history in regards to past Princes of Wales, their behaviours and relationships, in particular that of George IV and Princess Caroline of Brunswick. Ms. Campbell points out amazing similarities between Caroline and Diana, and for that alone this book is worth delving into. Although I am reasonably well-versed in the recent past and current happenings of the House of Windsor, what I read was news to me, and sheds some light on the Royal Family, Prince Charles, and a marriage that was, unfortunately, doomed from the start.

5 comments about Complete Idiot's Guide to BRITISH ROYALTY (The Complete Idiot's Guide).

1. I was browsing this book to decided if I should buy it when I came across the family trees in the back. Whether it was the author or the proofreader who should be held responsible is unclear, however it states that Elizabeth II and Margaret were the daughters of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. Anyone who knows anything about this century, can tell you that is simply WRONG! As most people know, George VI was father to Liz and Maggie, and that is why Liz is queen. Her father became king when his BROTHER, Eddy abdicated the thrown so he COULD marry Wallis!



2. I bought this book for my wife who for some reason is afflicted with an intense interest in all things royal. I thought I would look though it becuase on this topic I could be called an idiot. Well, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the book. It is well laid out, it holds your attention and does a very good job in describing many items that I would normally glaze over. For the causal observer of the royals this is probably a very good guide. With that said, I have read in some of these other reviews that there are a few errors in the family trees of the book. That was not an important part of my enjoyment or use of the book, and speaking from experience (my wife's collection) if you are that into the royals there are many (many) books that detail family trees down to the family pets. Overall this is an enjoyable book to get the basics and I now can at least understand some of what my wife talks about on this topic.



3. The Complete Idiots Guide to British Royalty is a very good book. Like it says, it is a book for people that do not know much about the English Kings and Queens. By the time you are done though they have given you some very interesting insights about each King and Queen of England from Egbert (reigned about 830) to actually Prince Charles (b 1947)

   The book is divided into sections depending on what "branch" of the royal family the particular king or queen was in (for example Queen Elizabeth I would be in the section about the Tudors, but James I right after her would be part of the Stuart family.) The sections deal with the major things happening during that particular reign were and what the king or queen had to deal with at the time (for example during the reign of Elizabeth I they talk about the Spanish Armada as well as her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots wanting to be Queen of England.) The book also goes into details about what goes into the making of a Knight as well as background on Princess Diana. It also goes into detail about the Crown Jewels and some of the more well know Royal gaffs (such as Princess Diana saying she would take Phillip Charles Arthur George to be her lawfully wedded husband instead of Charles Phillip Arthur George)

   All in All a very good book for people who want to know more about the royal family of England or are just looking to increase your knowledge.




4. Even if you don't know where Britain is located, this book will amuse you with its strange historical trivia and amusing snippets about past and present rulers. This is a relatively complete guide to the Kings and Queens of England, and a bit more in-depth on the current Royal Family. There is only so much you can fit into one medium-sized book, so they did a good job of balancing the straight history with some fun facts.

   If you are an avid history buff, you might get upset about some of the errors in the book, but they are minor enough to overlook even for a seasoned British historian - though you'll already know most of the jokes. For a novice historian or someone who's just interested in the British Isles, history or Royalty, this is a great book and a ton of fun! You'll actually learn a lot more than you'd think, and you'll find yourself relating the funny tales at parties or to your kids. Its also a great reference to keep around in case you ever need a quick profile of a time period or politics, such as if you want to put a movie or a book into perspective.

   All around its a good bit of history for mostly anyone, its easy to read and has enough humor and little witty factiods to keep you flipping the pages (sometimes just reading the fact/story boxes on each page is more fun, if you don't want to get into the drier stuff). It would make a great gift, and if you get it for someone I'm sure you'll be flipping through it yourself before too long trying to see what the next crazy king did!




5. The rather stupid marketing-inspired titles aside, this series is often above average in quality and usefulness. Buskin, however, is not an historian but a journalist who especially covered Princess Diana, as well as an author of pop biographies of subjects like Marilyn Monroe and John Lennon, so one might not expect much. His work, while generally accurate -- though he manages, through poor proofreading, to attribute the parentage of Elizabeth II to Edward VIII and Mrs. Warfield in the lineage chart at the back -- and reasonably well written, does tend to cuteness and witty asides. For the rank novice in matters royal, however, this is a servicable primer on the history, traditions, and scandals of 1,200 years of the monarchy in Britain.

2 comments about Innocent III: Vicar of Christ or Lord of the World?.

1. Innocent III was one of the most dynamic, influential and catholic (in the sense of hardline) popes in the history of the Church. His Bulls and decrees were sweeping in their scope and lasting in their influence, making him one of the most celebrated Bishops of Rome...as Mr. Powell so often points out.
   
   Unfortunately, this book is only the Catholic Church's official word on Lothar of Segni (his birth name). As such, it presumes that its reader is a Catholic and willing to accept what Powell has taken from the annals of the Vatican as gospel. The true fact of the matter is that, while the contents of this volume are (presumably) accurate, the other side of Innocent III was darker. His reign was fraught with corruption, dissent and massacre. It was, notably, this pope who declared the Templar Knights to be categorically unholy and it was he who ordered them summarily massacred after they had defended Christendom in his name during the Crusade, for the very reason that influential politicians were jealous of the Templars' landholdings throughout Europe. It was also Innocent who called for some of the most bloody actions of those conflicts.
   
   The take away from this volume is that it is written, sanctioned and released by the Catholic Church, and as such must be taken with a grain of salt.



2. While reading a Jonathan Phillips book on the 4th crusade, I became interested in Innocent III, so I looked up books on him. There was only one review of this book and while the reviewer may be right about the book (Innocent III did indeed have his short comings), he does have some facts wrong.
   
   Innocent did NOT have the Knights Templar 'summarily massacred' but in fact saved them from being excommunicated. The Templars then returned the favor by helping Innocent III in his extermination of the Cathars. Pope Innocent III launched the 4th crusade which went totally array, and instead of slaughtering the Saracens, the crusaders took it out on the Greek Orthodox at Constantinople. And while you might argue that 'Butchery is Butchery' even Innocent III had a problem with killing Christians (the Cathars weren't considered 'Christians')
   
   I'll get back to you all with a review when I do actually read this book..
   
   PS It was Clement V who sent the Knights Templar into oblivion (unless you believe that some of them survived and buried their treasure in modern day Nova Scotia) nearly 100 years later.

3 comments about Churchill and War.

1. A book for all those interested in the martial side of the great British statesman. Especially interesting to me were thoughts on WW II air raids on Dresden and the overalll tactics and morality of Bomber Command. Also, many will find Professor Best's discussion of Winston Churchill's involvement with the development of the atomic bomb and his early 1950s statements on maintaining international peace, given this new war device, especially informative.
   
   British historian Geoffrey Best writes from deep knowledge, and in a pleasing style. Readers interested in a broader treatment of Sir Winston's life would profit from reading his 2001 biography, "Churchill: a Study in Greatness."



2. This is a brillant book; well researched, extremely well written and a great read!
   
   Author Geoffrey Best shows the important role war played in the life of Winston Churchill, beginning with his birth at Blenheim (built for John Churchill, first Duke of Malborough and commemorating the 1704 battle, which secured England's rising position in the world) and focusing mainly on the British leader's seminal role in the Second World War. "War was central to Churchill's life," writes Best, "He was a soldier before he was a politician."
   
   Best addresses various aspects of Churchill as a war leader, including his influence on the Grand Alliance and the strategic insight and war direction he provided to Great Britian and the Allies. While he helped to determine the outcome of the war by ensuring America's participation, Churchill's strategic vision was, at times, faulty. Certainly his resistence to Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy and the European Continent, in favor of a greater Allied commitment in Italy and the Balkans, shows him at his strategic worse.
   
   Following the Second World War, however, the British leader became less conservative and more flexible and worked fervently to avert another world war. The use of atomic weapons in another war became anathema to him. "The fact was that Churchill had lost his taste for war," records Best. "He had studied was for sixty years and lived it for fifteen of then and it had been getting worse all the time. He had never cherised illusions about it."
   
   This book dispels a great many myths about Winston Churchill and his attitudes toward war. Informative and insightful, it will alter our perceptions of a great statesman, whose life, from beginning to end, was filled with war.



3. Geoffrey Best masterfully highlights the role that war played in Winston Churchill's long life while putting to rest some myths and misconceptions on this subject. As Best puts it diplomatically at the beginning, Churchill was not a saint. Churchill was at times rough and at others smooth. Churchill's roughness was embodied in his egotism, ruthlessness, and lack of consideration. Churchill's smoothness was found in his decency, patriotism, humanity, and courage. The secret behind Churchill's greatness lied in breaking rules.
   
   Churchill was a man in a hurry, on the lookout for both fame and notice. Churchill was always wondering how he looked like if he did this or that. Churchill was looking for his "finest hours" for decades. Churchill repeatedly showed recklessness on the battlefield while believing that nothing serious could ever happen to him during his military adventures.
   
   Churchill's books, articles, and speeches were at the service of his military and political ambitions while making a living out of them. Churchill valued most his writings about war. War was the most exciting activity to man in Churchill's view. History taught him that war was ruling the destinies of nations.
   
   Churchill was never one to be idle. Churchill's great transformation began when he took to serious company and books. Churchill did not find any relish in club-lounging, party-going, dancing, and womanizing. Although Churchill was not indifferent to female charm, he was not at ease with women. Churchill was lucky to find in Clementine Hozier a gifted woman who could accommodate his sometimes difficult character.
   
   Churchill was a very hard working man and showed an unusual talent for mastering detail. Churchill had an elephantine memory on which he could rely to use facts and data for further purposes. Although Churchill had an unusual gift with words, he was not by nature an effective public speaker.
   
   Churchill had a deep interest in military strategy within which the large allied armies operated during the two world wars. Strategizing was to him the closest thing to commanding great armies in the field. Churchill's interest in generalship was at the very heart of his fascination with war, including the technologies used for waging war. Like other war leaders, Churchill found the neutrality of non-belligerents irksome.
   
   Churchill remained a democrat at times of war by not suppressing critics who annoyed him. Despite his excitement about war, Churchill considered magnanimous peacemaking important once war was over. However, Churchill had no intention to condone the atrocities committed by the Nazis against non-combatants during WWII.
   
   The older Churchill was, the more he became aware of the heavy price tag attached to war for those who did not have his luck. For all his humanity, Churchill knew very well that war was a dreadfully demanding endeavor that overturned peacetime norms and hardened man's heart. Churchill had no illusion about the increasingly lethal evolution of war during his lifetime. Unsurprisingly, Churchill promoted a peace agenda after WWII with the advent of the balance of nuclear terror.
   
   To summarize, Best helps his audience better comprehend what role war played in the existence of a man who left an indelible footprint behind him.

No comments about Rudyard Kipling: Something of Myself (Canto original series).

2 comments about Rebel Sons of Erin: A Civil War Unit History of the Tenth Tennessee Infantry Regiment (Irish) Confederate States Volunteers.

1. this book deals with a little written about subject,a confederate regiment comprised of mainly Catholic Irishmen.It traces their record from Ft. Donelson to Bentonville.the book is notable because of what it doesn't say as well as what it does. Most of theses soldiers seemed to have little to any political views and joined up in defense of their lands and families,not really yankee-haters or sympathetic to southern slavery. when the war machine goes into gear they are caught in the machinery and sign up without much hesitation as southern patriots. Almost none of them own slaves or would even want to.What keeps them going is their loyalty to their country ,their religion,and each other.The book contains alot of anecdotal stories about the individuals in the book,like the heroism of Father Biemel,who ministered to the physical and spiritual needs of the men and paid the ultimate sacrifice.there is also alot of humor in the book,I particularly enjoyed the story of General John Bell Hood,the rebel General in charge of the defenses of Atlanta. Gleeson says of him that Hood became more agreesive on the attack the more body parts he lost.there are alot of human interest stories as well as a "where are they now",section which tracks down some of the alumi of the 10th Tennessee after the war.A wife of one of the commanders who was killed in battle more or less forgot her husband and later became a notorious nag.the drummer boy made it 1938 and some of these ex-confederates were actually able to get state veterans benefits for their widows.The book also deals with the subject of confederate desertion rates throughout the war and this factor definitely cut into the combat ability of the 10th.I was surprised at how many desertions occurred in the earlier part of the war as well as the later.



2. Sometimes you just have to learn to live with paradox. It is indeed a paradox getting reviews left on even after it is posted. Someone is afraid of rebels from the South. They would have been hanged like the real boy spy from Smyrna, Tennessee, Sam Davis (no relation to the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis) was hanged on a hill in Pulaski, Tennessee, where his statue still supervises the courthouse square and a corner of the State Capitol grounds in Nashville.
   
   The usual practice of the Union leaders was to get information from the spies and then hang them anyway. Sam was given the option to tattle on his source. He said, "If I had a million lives, I would give them all up before I revealed the name of my friend." The person who had given him the bit of war news was in the jail cell next to him and lived to tell the story -- after the war.
   
   Tennessee was particularly hit hard by the rascals. One girl in Knoxville had to be sent to relatives in another state to keep her from ending up as Sam Davis did. Since then other books have surfaced of female spies. At the fair, I asked a real photographer if he could make me look like a Confederate spy; he did by dressing me as a Southern matron holding that flag. So, you see, I would have been one had I lived here in Union land (now Republican). No man tells a Southern woman that she is inferior in any way. We fight for our rights. Some years ago, I told a local historian had I loved back them, I might have been hanged as a Confederate spy (Knox. was Union) and he agreed. In one of his recent history lessons, he describes the defeated Jeff Davis as a defeated man with receding hair and a wispy goatee who visited this town in 1871 who was on his way via rail to Memphis. Davis described Grant's administration as wicked and the writer had him and one of his generals, Forrest, as leaders of the klan which was started by a group of Pulaski lawyers and judges. It was not a part of the Confederacy at all, formed to protect Southerners from the Northern Carpetbaggers during reconstruction.
   
   Our Southern lads gave up their lives for a cause. One which was disrupted by the corruption of leaders after the war and since. But, we are not called the Volunteer State for nothing.

4 comments about The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy (Oxford Illustrated Histories).

1. This book is a must for those readers interested in the history of the British Monarchy. The authors and editors have masterly created both an historical perspective of the institution as well as a personal viewpoint which is both critical and sentimental. Some may be turned off by the length of this book, but once you begin reading, you'll wonder where the time goes. And the wonderful photographs and illustrations bring their words to life.



2. The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy is a uniquely complete book. This is a book very worthy of Oxford, consisting primarily of chapters on royal and political history generally, interspersed throughout with boxed essays on each monarch, special topics, maps, photographs and paintings.

   This book begins with the murky beginnings of royalty in Britain, arising out of the chaos of the post-Roman world. Here we encounter names such as Aethelberht, Raewald, and Hywel Dda -- this book doesn't just concentrate as so many do on the English monarchies, but also on Welsh and Scottish clans, lines, and kingdoms. Here we find that King Eric Bloodaxe, the Viking King of York was followed not too many years later by Edgar the Peacable, king of Mercia and the Danelaw.

   With the inclusion of this extensive pre-Norman section, the book is a must for any British history library. Apart from that, the history is fairly basic -- well written, interesting, but no grand and new insights, more of an encyclopedia writ as an essay rather than articles on particular subjects (for which I am grateful--nothing so disjointed and unsatisfying in many ways as reading an encyclopedia). This however can make looking up topics a bit more difficult, but I've found as I've sought out one piece of information (using the very good index) I find much more (which is always to be desired).

   The final sections include chapters on Royal Residences and Tombs, Genealogies, and Lists of Monarchs, including Scottish as well as English monarchs.

   This book is filled with little bits of interest--for instance, an example of 17th century propaganda: 'In the absence of newspapers, radio, and television, other means of representing events and influencing opinion assumed greater importance. A pack of cards took as its unconvivial theme Monmouth's rebellion in 1685. The six of clubs shows Monmouth's entry into Lyme Regis; the seven of spades shows the duke's fate; and the five of diamonds that of his followers.' This caption accompanies pictures of playing cards with scenes of hanged or beheaded men, etc. An interesting means of information dissemination.

   A very worthy book, perhaps the only royal book a non-historian would ever need; a definite need for any historian or royal watcher.




3. The history of Great Britain since the 5th century is largely the history of its sovereigns, and vice versa, and this fat volume is a success on both scores. Beginning with the early Celtic kings who brought some form of organization to early British (and Welsh and Irish) society, Cannon escorts the reader through the island's history, reign by reign, from Rædwald of the East Angles to Elizabeth II, tracing the waxing and waning of the monarch's personal power, noting royal marriages and interments, wars and treaties, glorious victories and humiliating failures. A great deal of the personal is included along with the politics, as when the young Edward VI coolly notes the execution in 1552 of his uncle, the Duke of Somerset, and the exasperated Queen Anne's attempts in 1703 to reason with her Whig ministers. The numerous illustrations, many in color, add to the flavor of the narrative as well as the reader's understanding. This book may be the only general history of the British monarchy that any student would ever need.



4. The reader of this book will learn a lot about the British (and, before that, the English) monarchy, from the dark ages to today. Each monarch and dynasty are treated objectively and respect, trying to stay as close to their own time as possible and without dogmatic judgements. Hence the "villans" of the Monarchy (Richard III, Henry VIII, George IV) are shown to have a more positive side than one usually gives them credit for, while the "saints" (Henry V, Richard the Lion-Hearted, etc.) are shown to have their dark side as well.
   
   But the book isn't revisionist for the sake of being revisionist--it does acknowledge that, in the final accounting, history's judgement of the good or bad monarchs seems rather justified (e.g., while George IV did promote the arts, he was a debt-ridden bankrupt who treated his wife abominably). Furthermore, it doesn't judge the monarchs by our standards--by how "multicultural" or "feminist" or "anti-colonialist" they were, for instance. It correctly sees such judgement as distorting--as distorting as the Victorians' tendency to judge the past monarchs by *their* standard (e.g., which monarch won the most battles or gained the most colonies.) It does its best to assess the facts objectively--taking account of both the prejudices of the monarch's time and of our own.
   
   Take, as a typical example from the book, the case of George III. Having been unfortunate enough to preside over Britian's loss of the American colonies, as well as suffer from insanity in his old age, he was ridiculed by many contemporaries (especially American contemporaries) as a "tyrant", and "psychonalayzed" by our own generation--"proving" his insanity was (you guessed it) due to repressed sexual urges. While certainly not denying George III's tough position about the American policy, or his bouts of insanity, the authors note that, once the war was over, he told Adams that "nobody wanted this seperation less than me", but that, the seperation having been made, he would do his best for Britian and the new USA to be good friends. They also acknowlege his bouts of insanity and describe his bizzare personal and public behavior during it, but also note that it came (mostly) at the end of his days--after he was a loving, devoted family man and a very reasonable king for over 40 years. His insanity was viewed by contemporaries not with contempt, but with pity.
   
   The book's prose is clear, accessible, but--on the other hand--doesn't oversimplify when complexity and exactitute are called for (such as, for instance, when untangling the various claims to the throne that led to dynasty changes). Furthermore, numerous illusrations being the period talked about to life. Finally, the paper quality is superb, and the index is excellent.