5 comments about Louis XIV.

1. I found this to be a very well thought out, and well-written, biography. In the space of less than 500 pages we are given a very complete picture of a remarkable man, a man who came to the throne as a child and was king from 1643 until his death in 1715. The author is admirably even-handed. Louis' faults are not ignored: In his youth and up until middle-age he was an inveterate womanizer. When he was through with a mistress, she was carted off to a convent. (There was a joke making the rounds at the time that the quickest way to salvation for a woman was via the King's bed!) Louis also had an inordinate fondness for war and glory. Besides the obvious cost in lives for soldiers of all the countries involved in these conflicts, France was bankrupted. This did not stop Louis from building and renovating- Versailles; Marly; Fontainebleau, etc. One of the many strengths of this book is that Mr. Dunlop can rightfully criticize this irresponsible behavior and profligate spending; then, he can turn right around and describe the architectural splendor, the beautiful gardens and fountains, etc. For, as Montesquieu asked: "Who could have told that the King established the greatness of France by building Versailles and Marly?" Another glaring "negative" in the rule of The Sun King was his persecution of the Huguenots, via his 1685 Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. But without making excuses or trying to justify what Louis did, Mr. Dunlop puts this in perspective. To quote the author: "Tolerance enjoys a high moral status in Western civilisation today, but it exists in inverse proportion to a general decline in commitment to any creed or moral code. Total tolerance denies, in effect, the possibility of any objective truth in either religion or ethics. Intolerance, a logical outcome of total commitment or total conviction, is therefore more typical of the seventeenth century because of the often fanatical firmness with which the differing faiths were held." Likewise, regarding Louis' fondness for the ladies, the author shows us both the weakness of Louis in his giving in (often!) to temptation but also shows us the difficulties involved in resisting.... If you are brought up to believe that you are God's anointed, could you refuse the advances of beautiful, intelligent, charming women...some of whom were quite ruthless in the means they used to get a previous mistress out of the way? For bedding the King wasn't only a romantic achivement- the families of these women would "egg them on," hoping to gain political influence at court. Louis was aware that people were trying to use him, and he was always on his guard. This book is a wonderful blend of the political, the philosophical, the religious and the military aspects of Louis' reign....as well as containing much enjoyable material on the architecture and the gardens of the royal residences. The mistresses, the gossip and the hypocrisy and political infighting at court are certainly not neglected! With extensive excerpts from the diaries and letters of Louis, Saint-Simon, Vauban, Mme de Maintenon, etc., we get a beautiful balance of the personal and the public life of The Sun King. This is a very impressive book.



2. I once read that Louis XIV would hold court with his advisors and other notables while receiving his daily enema, making him sort of a public "enema of the people." Maybe that's what was wrong with the French monarchy. The author seems to agree with me that Louis did have his problems, not the least of which is the eponymous condition, Dunlap's disease (note the similarity to our author's name), which Louis had also. Asked once whether he was gaining weight, Louis replied, "It done lapped over my belt." And the rest, as they say, is history...



3. My purpose in reading this book was very simple: i wanted to have an idea on one of the most famous kings in french history and i wasnt dissapointed. The author makes an interesting accounting of Louis XIV.It covers important areas like major constructions ordered by Louis and his political struggles with other european nations. It is interesting the way the author explains Louis relationship with some of his family members like his oldest son and his oldest grand son, the King of Spain,Philip V.On the other hand, Mr Dunlop uses way too many french words and sentences.This is annoying because you are left trying to make sense out of what was said and it's relation with the rest of the paragraph.Also, the author dedicates too much pages to Louis desire for architecture and construction.He gaves too many details that are not that necesary when you are talking about a very prominenet and influential king as Louis XIV.In short, it is a very good book for someone who is beginning to get interested in the matter.



4. Academic reviewers have been a bit sniffy about this book. It's true that Dunlop scatters quotations throughout the book without a footnote to be seen. He also makes some careless errors of fact. For example on p.432 he claims that Lully was composing music in 1710, when he had been dead for 23 years.

   However, readers who are not worried about its lack of scholarly rigour should find this a very enjoyable book. Dunlop has a delightfully easy going style and an eye for the enlivening anecdote. It would be hard to write a dull book about such an extraordinary monarch as Louis XIV and Dunlop's biography is not a bad place to make his acquaintance.

   Those who want to meet Louis face to face, as it were, should seek out Lucy Norton's three volume edition of Saint Simon's Versailles memoirs.




5. It's amazing to me when an author takes a potentially fascinating person, and writes in a way that is both confusing and somewhat boring. As a history teacher with a degree in European history I found many of the chapters hard to follow. There is rarely any explanantion or foundation of the people being described. The author seems to assume the reader has inside knowlege of the titles and social structure of the French court and French language. Overall I found the book to be disjointed and hard to follow. It is the type of book that made me feel as though I should read another biography of Louis XIV to understand this obne.

3 comments about The People's King: The True Story of the Abdication.

1. Someone witty once said that Britain should have statues honoring Wallis Simpson all over England. It's true; she saved them from the catastrophe that would have been King Edward VIII. Instead of reigning ineptly over the people of Britain, he instead jaunted from villa to hotel to chateau all over Europe and beyond, swilled cocktails, and draped his beloved in jewels. When Edward VIII abdicated to marry his twice-divorced American Wallis, it was the best thing to happen to England since Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha trotted over from Germany to marry the besotted Queen Victoria.
   
   This book presents the view that the people loved King Edward and did not want to see him abandon the throne and would have accepted a morganatic marriage with Wallis as wife but not queen. He, however, wanted her to have "the whole bag of tricks." That he was popular with the people certainly is true. But David (as he was known in the family) was a self-absorbed man with little sense of personal duty, no grasp of the responsibility of royalty, and strong feelings against his mother, Queen Mary (whom he described in his memoirs as a "bitch with ice water running in her veins.") He was the golden boy of the family as Prince of Wales in the 20s - handsome, dashing, modern. Indeed, he had an almost American classless sensibility. He liked cocktails and weekend partying and married women. He was a source of considerable irritation to his father, George V, who said about him despairingly, "After I'm dead, that boy will ruin himself in twelve months," which wasn't far from the truth.
   
   The author also posits that he would have made a wonderful king if the bad government hadn't bullied him into abdicating. He had progressive social ideas that would have been beneficial to the country. He wanted to help the poor and marginalized of the country. That might have been true on the surface, but nothing about the Duke of Windsor's life post-abdication bears this out. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor did not spend much time attempting to improve the lives of the poor or downtrodden anywhere, and he served most begrudgingly as Governor of Bermuda during World War II while his brother and wife were being bombed on in Buckingham Palace. He simply gave lip service to the idea of social programs while he was Prince of Wales, but that is the extent of it.
   
   English history bulges with the stories of younger brothers who take up the mantle of kingship when the older brother has died: Henry VIII was a younger brother, as was George V (indeed, George's brother Eddy, Duke of Clarence, was another spoiled, dissipated libertine who spared the country when he conveniently died in his 20s). In this story, the older brother bolted with his lover instead and left the younger brother, the hapless Bertie, holding the bag. Bertie, who became George VI, was saddled with a speech impediment, stutter, and similar mother issues. However, he had a better-formed character, and was blessed not only with a strong sense of determination and duty but also a loving and supportive wife, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. He married a strong woman reminiscent of mother but much kinder, whereas David found a bullying mother figure in Wallis and reveled in it the rest of his life. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were the exact people for the country heading into the Second World War and beyond. They might have been dull and nonfascinating, but they had two lively daughters and a settled family life. They were not photographed shaking the hand of Hitler, frolicking on holiday at the beach, or leaving drink-rings on the state papers. They were dutiful, perfect royals. George V once remarked that he hoped "nothing would come between Bertie and Lilibet (current Elizabeth II) and the throne." He got his wish.
   
   The only legitimate gripe the Duke and Duchess had was the withholding of the title "Her Royal Highness" to Wallis after she married David. As the wife of a royal duke, she was without a doubt entitled to it. The Duke bitched about this to his dying day, mattering more to him than his virtual exile from England. It mattered less to Wallis, who I think never wanted to be the wife of a periphatic, roaming monarch. There was far more cachet in being the mistress of a king than the wife of an exile, and I would wager she was horrified that David made his grand romantic gesture and gave it all up for her. Personally, I think it was a selfish escape from the responsibilities of kingship for David. I think he wanted his cake and to eat it, too. He thought he would be able to come back and live in grand style in England as Duke of Windsor with his beloved. However, the family were outraged at his dereliction of duty, and there was simply no way the government would allow back into the country someone so volatile as to communicate personally to Adolph Hitler (albeit it was a plea for peace), member of the royal family or not.
   
   Simply put, the author feels Edward VIII was unfairly pushed out of his role and unable to fulfill what was undoubtedly a shining destiny. I think perhaps he meant well, but the truth is far different, as I feel history bears out brilliantly. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor turned into sad figures with no sense of social responsibility whatsoever. Wallis, the woman who saved England, should indeed be honored with statues throughout the country.



2. Edward VIII was a flawed man like any leader, but he was far more of a man of the people than any British monarch before or since. The people did indeed adore him, especially war veterans. Edward didn't sail around doing nothing on a ship like his brother, he was a soldier and was in the trenches for a time and visited the front whenever he could. This book is full of examples of his kindness, his manners and generosity to people, as well as his concern for the poor. The previous reveiewer is incorrect saying that his post-abdication years showed no concern for the poor. He did much for the poor and less fortunate while governor of the Bahamas (not Burmuda).
   
   I admit I do not understand his fascination with Wallis Simpson, who was keeping a lover on the side while having an affair with Edward. This was discovered by the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch while they had her under surveillence. I've heard all sorts of theories as to why he was so infatuated with her, including Simpson's supposed use of "black magic" to cast a spell on him. Whatever the reason, I can't see it. She was a gold digger and twice divorced and totally unworthy of this man.
   
   Edward incurred his parents wrath because he was not playing the monarch game like they thought it should be played. He cared about the common people, the poor, veterans. His father didn't, and neither did his brother. Their allegience was to the rich, the ruling class. Edward had seen war first hand and wanted to avoid it, Baldwin and warmongers like Churchill could not manipulate him as they did the weak and vacillating George VI. Edward would have done all he could have to avoid a war with Germany, a war the Germans didn't want. He was shut out by his brother and family after the abidication and after the war (his brother forbid any member of the royal family from attending his wedding!), so to say that Edward was just some playboy that didn't care about anything but himself is absurd.
   
   The best thing that could have happened to Britain is if Edward had realized his real popularity with the people, stood his ground, and forced that pompous tool of the rich, Baldwin, to fish or cut bait. Resign the government or shut up and mind his own business. The world is a worse place because he didn't. To me Edward was a good man, and in politics good men don't fare well.



3. This book was excellent because the author had unprecedented access to the public's documents which she used in her case to prove that much of the general public in Great Britain wanted the King to stay on the throne and might even have accepted Mrs. Simpson as his queen. This being the case, Williams offers a new look at the forces that were at work behind the scenes in the days leading up to the abdication.

1 comments about Pilgrim Princess : The Life of Princess Zinaida Volkonsky.

1. Princess Zinaida Volkonsky was apparently one of those handful of beautiful and charming women who scent the pages of 18th c. histories. Cultured, wealthy, aristocratic and intellectual, they held sway over Tsars and Kings, salons and balls, their glittering jewels and extravagant gowns highlighting their beauty, their wit and learning flavoring their conversation.

   A talented musician, poet, hostess and political medler, Princess Zinaida was born into the Russian aristocracy, and came to adulthood during a fascinating chapter in that country's history. Russia of the late 18th c. was more open, more Western and more powerful than it would be for centuries. This exotic and connected Princess had the ear (and heart) of the young Alexander I who had just defeated Napoleon after his diasterous attempt to conquer Mother Russia. She was friendly with Gogol, Pushkin, Turgenev and other writers who were at that moment raising Russian literature to glorious heights. She traveled from St. Petersberg to Venice to Paris to Rome to Vienna and back at a time when such travel was rare and arduous. She captivated young men, ignored her too patient husband, and impressed all around her with her many alluring attributes. Pulled toward the Church of Rome, she finally converted to Catholicism, settled in Rome, built a lovely villa with enchanting gardens and worked her charms on Cardinals and Bishops. She died of pneumonia after giving her warm petticoat to an old street woman, but not after establishing a number of religious schools for girls in and around Rome.

   So why is this book so deadly dull? The ingredients for a delicious biography a la Nancy Mitford's "Pompador" are so readily to hand, but first-time author Maria Fairweather is unable to bring her fairy Princess to life. She remains flat on the pages, alway busy, yes, but also annoyingly neurotic, selfish and, frankly, not very interesting. Her faith and conversion is never convincingly explored, her circle of friends is impressive, but there is no hint of what drew these fascinating men to the lovely Zinaida. The central character of this book is missing. She isn't a mystery, she is a cipher.

No comments about Diana (Diana Princess of Wales).

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

1. THE GOSSIP AND SNIPING THAT SURROUNDED HER IN LIFE IS CUT TO THE QUICK BY THE HONESTY THAT CAME THROUGH HER DEATH. THIS BOOK PROVIDES A REALISTIC LOOK AT DIANA. A MUST HAVE FOR DIANA COLLECTORS AND DEVOTEES.



2. While dozens of pictorial testimonials to Princess Diana have already appeared Requiem offers more than eighty written tributes and recollections. Dont buy this book for pictures it leaves that to others. But this 43 year old does not mind saying the tributes and recollections moved him to tears. If you are a Diana fan this book is a must have.



3. at least in a very long time. I picked up the book as soon as received and had a difficult time putting it down. Its been a long time (over 2 years) since Diana's passing but this book made it feel like it was last month. All the feelings and emotions came flooding back & made me remember what a great loss this was to the world. Obviously the writers of the essays etc had very strong emotions towards Princess Diana. The feeling of love for this lady comes pouring out of each story.



4. I think Princess Diana was one of the most loved royal family members of England and the world and this book proves that! I felt like she connected with everyone she met. I never met her but I was in a car traveling through the streets of London once and her royal auto passed by, it seemed to glow with her warmth. Review written by the author of Bruised But Still Strong which contains a poem about Princess Di called HRH.



5. Yes, this book is now 10 years old. And it's been 10 years since Princess Diana died, but this book is a very vivid reminder of that horrible week following her death. That week where I, and I'm guessing millions more, stayed glued to the TV not quite believing what had happened. This book brings the chaos of that tragic time back, but gives us the most beautiful remembrences of the late princess from people she touched. People she visited at hospitals where she shined her brightest helping people.
   
   I was hoping there would be pictures in this as well, but the picture on the cover is the way I'd like to remember her. Beautiful, happy, radiant. And really I wouldn't want to see pictures from that week anyway. It was too sad to remember it just reading about it. This book captured that one week in a tiny time capsule in a way I've never seen any book on history do. Because now that is what she is believe it or not-history.
   
   During the 10 year memorial stuff my 5 year old niece asked who the pretty blonde woman on the TV all the time was. We told her she was a princess who was very kind to sick people and cared for others, but had died before she was born. She looked up at me and asked, "A REAL princess?" When she's older I'll gladly give her this book to show her how the entire world stopped to grieve over the most amazing woman in the world. And tell her how one ordinary person CAN change the world. Princess Diana was proof of that.
   
   So YES! This is a book for anyone's collection!

5 comments about The Road from Versailles: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and the Fall of the French Monarchy.

1. The Road from Versailles is more than another retelling of this laboriously studied part of the French Revolution. It is a well-written narration, with excellently crafted literary panache and skill that really translate into a rousing read for any reader. More than that however, author Munro Price offers some very good new sources that lend a lot to his ideas concerning the last days of the Bourbon monarchy. His interpretation avoids the trap of dry repetitive narration/research and instead relies on new sources of information to explain the authors somewhat unique viewpoint.

   The Road from Versailles begins in familiar territory. As the reign of Louis XVI continued, France fell further and further into failure, both economic and militarily. France was reeling from numerous failures abroad, most notably the defeat at the hand of the British in North America during the French and Indian War. Economically, the country was an absolute disaster. Even the royal government itself was not sure of the nations finances, and the system was bleeding funds chronically. People wanted someone to blame for their conditions, and they found a good candidate in the Austrian princess Marie Antoinette. Her heritage and her penchant for finery quickly gained her the ire of the French public. As disasters mounted, the monarchy came under attack from all sides. It was clear that, politically, Louis XVI would have to alter his role. How to do this was the big question. Rapidly, the question became moot as the street violence exploded.

   Munro concentrates on the minor, or supposedly minor, character of Breteuil, a royal minister. Using new documents, Munro suggests that Breteuil was much more involved than previously though, especially concerning the various royal plots to aid the royals in their escape from Paris. One of the best parts of the book is its emphasis on what was happening outside of France, as numerous plots were being hatched to either evacuate the royal government or to reestablish its power by military force. The decisions and actions made and taken by the royal family are also examined. Munro tries to explain Louis XVI inaction and floundering a little too much, I thought. I believe the simple answer is that Louis was a very foolish person, who had little political comprehension besides the absolutionist system he was born into. Marie is shown as quite active, but not as devious as proposed in the some other works. Munro does a great job of explaining his conclusions to the reader in a way that is accessible to both popular and academic readers. A very good work of history.




2. This was an interesting and very readable book - I was sorry to see it end. It was obviously painstakingly researched and contains a lot of little known information about Louis and Marie-Antoinette and particularly their attitude toward the revolution which eventually killed them. It includes details about Marie-Antoinette's actions and attitudes that the general public may be surprised at - she was not just another pretty face who let events unfold - instead she apparently became stronger and took an active part in events.

   Even though the death of the king and queen were inevitable I found myself rooting for their escape. The book almost reads like a novel, but is a true and absorbing story.




3. Author Munro Price has shown that intense research combined with informative speculation is consistent with successfully piecing together a very confusing and torrid sequence of events in Western European history. Price, through what appears to be pains taking information gathering, relays a brilliant account of the lives of some of the French Revolution's most influential players. He brings to light, to those not in the academic world, the Baron de Breteuil and his tremendous influence on the policy of counter-revolutionary France. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the recipients of the brunt of the Revolution, were shown both in their glory and in the flaws that led to their eventual demise. Price has not failed to impress with his clearly thought out formulations of the mindset and personal weaknesses of Louis XVI and, in contrast, the inner strength of Marie Antoinette. This book is easily followed and is difficult to put down. I recommend to anyone interested in this monumental period of political change in Europe.



4. This book is a true pleasure to read. It focuses on a relatively small number of personalities and describes what they did- always backed up with research- and the consequences of their actions. The author's style is crisp, focussed and dignified, bereft of obscure or uncommon words that save you the frustration of constantly referring to the dictionary. It makes the principal charcters come to life.
   
   The narrative quality is consistent and sustains your interest throughout. It is neither exhaustive, nor exhausting to read. I recommend it highly.



5. I got this book to learn a little about a topic I didn't know that much about. That I came away feeling that I was well-versed in the most esoteric of historical controversies is a testament to the quality of the work. The author has painstakingly researched the issues involved in the French Revolution. Everywhere in the book where a controversy is discussed, the author makes his conclusion, provides the evidence for his conclusion, and why he doesn't believe in alternative explanations. This comprehensive approach allows the reader to understand history not from the usual "because I say, it is so" approach, but to have a sense of how other theories might co-exist.
   
   The narrative shows how close run a thing the French Revolution was and how many directions it might have taken. It also shows the struggles of two highly flawed individuals (the irresolute King and his stubborn, crafty wife) placed in the most complicated of situations. Most importantly, it focuses on Mssr. Bretieul, a French noble, who steadfastly negotiated on their behalf among foreign capitals for many hopeless years.
   
   The book differs from others in that it shows the Revolution from an almost exclusively Royal point of view. Those looking for an overview of the Revolutionary side will be sorely disappointed. But, those who want to see insight into the minds of the royals, who fumbled and bumbled into an escalation that destroyed the tradition of ages, will revel in the fascinating story.

5 comments about Elizabeth: A Biography of Britain's Queen.

1. Sarah Bradford, an accomplished and very thorough biographer, offers a highly sympathetic and detailed account of Queen Elizabeth II's life up to the mid-1990s. The book sparkles early with fascinating accounts of the Queen's formative years, particularly those during the scandal involving the Duke of Windsor and her father's subsequent -- and highly successful -- reign. In her presentation of Queen Elizabeth's reign, Bradford's biography is occasionally bogged down by an excess of names. The Queen's fondness for horses is also presented in extensive detail. Nevertheless, this biography is successful at providing a peek into Queen Elizabeth's life and offering insight into the Queen's dedication to her role as Queen of Britain and the Commonwealth.



2. I found this book very enjoyable and informative. I have read many other biographies of Queen Elizabeth II, but there were some
   new details presented here. Nothing shocking or in bad taste.

   The author has written fairly about a woman whose life we cannot imagine. You wonder how she has managed to cope these years.

   I came away with the belief that the powers that are behind the throne, the men in grey, should be eliminated or at least brought into this century. However, tradition is what keeps Elizabeth going and where would she be without it?




3. There is little in Ms Bradford's account to contradict Eleanor Roosevelt's view of the Royal Family of the 1950s that they were nice people but vastly detached from real life; possibly Mrs Roosevelt would have been less kindly disposed to the irresponsible younger royals of more recent years. It is a considerable feat to render people interesting whose importance derives wholly from their station, and Ms Bradford succeeds admirably in explaining the mystery of why eminent people who are substantial in their own right report so favourably on encounters with the Queen and Prince Philip while being unable because of the convention of not reporting private conversations to say just why. Ms Bradford is entertainingly forthcoming while properly diplomatic on the deficiencies of the lesser royals who are of any importance -- Prince Charles and Lord Mountbatten, for example -- and fills out the hagiography surrounding the Queen Mother with illuminating detail on her amusing inconsistencies. The one quibble I have is with the discussion of various constitutional niceties. Conceivably Ms Bradford's sources in the British and Commonwealth bureaus are as vague as the observations Ms Bradford makes on such matters as the status of Papua and New Guinea prior to their Independence in 1975 (Papua was indeed a British possession, albeit administered by Australia; New Guinea was an Australian UN Trust Territory) or Canada and Australia's respective evolving sovereignty. But these are indeed quibbles and detract only slightly from the overall excellence of the biography. Ms Bradford is a gifted writer and scholar of compelling and persuasive authority and has a mellifluous prose style. One wishes she might now turn her hand to subjects of more weight than the Queen, King George VI and Jackie Kennedy.



4. Elizabeth is a well-researched and very detailed chronicle of Her Majesty's life. At times, however, I thought the biography too detailed, especially about the innane and the irrelevant. I appreciated the descriptions about English political dynamics and the role of the monarch in a constitutional kingdom, but the seemingly endless banter about royal affairs were to me a little tabloid-ish. I would have wished for more political and historical context (something in the tradition of Robert Karo's Master of the Senate), but, with Bradford being a titled aristocrat herself, I suppose this is all I can expect. Elizabeth is an interesting read for those interested in royal life, but it will be tiresome for those yearning for a more substantive study of the reigning British monarch and the British government.



5. Unfortunately, I read the 1996 version of this superlative biography, but doing so offered some unsettling glimpses of the times to come for The Queen and her clan. This is a surprisingly even-handed biography which neither exploits nor glosses over the troubles in the House of Windsor, and acknowledges the kind permission of The Queen, The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret for their sharing of personal papers. The Queen is a lady I think I'd like to meet, and certainly someone for whom I'd love to work. I don't think I'd enjoy working for anyone else in her family, but she seems to be a great boss. She is portrayed as a kind woman who loves horses, and who is rather remote with her children; not terribly surprising information there. What is surprising is who attuned she is to the goings-on around her, but how she chooses to ignore many of the more troublesome aspects because she loathes confrontation. This is referred to by Sarah Bradford as "ostriching."
   
   One of the sentences that leapt out at me in its optimism was one about Elizabeth's "ability to read the mood of her country." Just over a year later, this would prove tragically wrong when Princess Diana was killed in Paris and The Queen took almost a week to respond to the pain her country was feeling over the loss. It has been a turbulent decade since the original publication, including that awful week, and then the loss of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret in 2002, and I'd like to read updated information regarding those events. I see that there is another version of "Elizabeth" updated in 2002, and I'll have to put that on my "to read" list.

4 comments about Camilla and Charles: The Love Story.

1. In her acknowledgements Graham mentions that she was introduced to Camilla Parker Bowles more than 10 years ago, her friends asked her (Graham)to set the record straight. This is by my count her 3rd (4th?) Camilla book.
   The book starts out, and ends, with a little bit about the recent marriage between Mrs. P.B. and the Prince of Wales but most of the bulk of the book is material you'll have already seen in another of Ms. Graham's books on Camilla. The cover photos are recent of course as is one B/W picture inside the book, but I do think I've read all the rest before.
   Ms. Graham must be Camilla's greatest fan, seems to think more highly of her than perhaps even what she thinks of Prince Charles. The late Princess Diana, or Paul Burrell?- virtually nothing good about them here.
   Even if you are yourself a Camilla fan I think your money could be better spent elsewhere if you have the earlier books. What little new information is probably already in something like Majesty Magazine, not much point in buying it twice. I was disappointed in how little new material there was here, didn't expect "I love Diana" but I did hope to actually learn something new.



2. Easy book to read. If you follow the Royals this may have a lot you already know. This book addresses why Charles and Camilla ultimately ended up with each other. It also shows her in a good light. Their relationship mirrors the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Co-dependent.......



3. This is not a "good read." Unless you like to read about the shennanigans of the bored and wealthy. Poor Camilla. The woman whose one ambition in life was to emulate her adulterous grandmother from the time she was little. Having gained the position of potential top-dog lady in the monarchy of the UK, she is pleased to have succeeded in following her lifetime adage of, "curtsy first, then jump into bed." Only it has been curtsy first and jump into many beds, whether married or not. Hmm. She is definately not a malefactor, but one wonders if it was good of author Caroline Graham to beatify a woman whose one sole purpose in life was to be the mistress of a king in order to have "the ear of the King." Poor Charles. She has his ear alright-among other things! This book left me nauseated by the first third of the book. Simple answer. Put it down and the feelings of nausea go away! Reading the dirty-laundry stories of these Royals--one is left with a lingering question. Where are the marriage counsellors that could tend to these poor people? Doctor Phil, could you make a Buckingham/Balmoral House call?? What if we taught our sons (and daughters) to "sow their wild oats" as Lord Mountbatten counselled Charles? Just think, we could all look forward to the same tacky open marriages torn apart by adultery, betrayals and death. Fun. Not! What have I learned from this book? That it is depressing. You would do much better to not buy this book. Better yet, buy the book "Franklin and Winston-An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship" by Jon Meacham and stay healthy! Read what makes a book a true, wonderful read--which deserved every bit of being on the New York Time's bestseller list. Read about ordinary people who become extraordinary when they aspire to bettering their countries and end up bettering history! C. Graham's book deserves a -1 but it wasn't in the ratings menu. As the previous reviewer said, "C. Graham is perhaps Camilla's best supporter." History will always remember her Machevellian manipulations and the weakness of Britain's future king. This is not a love story that lifts the reader to heights of virtuous, selfless love. But, instead, plummets one into the chasm of what happens when people pursue reckless and lustful ambitions that make mockery of marriage, drive princesses to their deaths in car accidents and promote their children into the same kind of death-spiral lifestyles of careless sex, cocaine use and messy divorces. I wonder how history would have been different if Prince Charles had truly listened to Major Bruce Shand's words and taken the elderly father of Camilla's advice when he ordered him to leave his daughter alone. Pages 203-205 depicts at least one person who had the courage to stand up to the future king of England and tell him the truth. What is sad-Prince Charles listened, but didn't listen. Things might have been better in history today, if just one person in that crazy group had just done the right thing. Caroline Graham was desperately trying to win sympathies for Camilla and Charles, but only succeeded in showing readers why the British monarchy is dangerously teetering on the brink of collapsing. After Elizabeth's II's magnificent reign, perhaps that would be the best thing.



4. It was refreshing to me to read the good things about Camilla.To me she is a thoughtful woman who is trying to do the right thing for her Husband and The Royal Family.

2 comments about Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle.

1. Shih Shan Henry Tsai has done something that Jonathan Spence has not been able to do: write a book that people can read and understand. No offense to Spence, I know he is considered the man for Chinese history, but maybe he is a better speaker than writer, because I can't get through any of his books and I have a strong background in Chinese History.

   Professor Tsai has taken primary and secondary sources about the second Ming Emperor or third depending on how you look at it and turned it into a interesting, well written, little book. The book is only about 200 pages and it is a quick read, but at the same time highly informative.

   I did not know much about the Ming Dynasty or Emperor Yongle before reading this book, but now I do. To me a good history book is one where you learn things you did not know before, and this book did that.

   I recommend this book highly to anyone who enjoys Chinese history. And if you want to read a more modern history of China look at Mandate of Heaven by Orville Schell.




2. I am a historian specializing Chinese history. I am very disappointed by the author's work. Comparing to Jonathan Spence's books and Ray Huang's book on Ming history, this book is very boring and lack of deepness. The author has made a great effort to gather a lot of details but they are so fragmental. The author fails to contextualize Yongle and his time, making Yongle so isolated in the Ming history. Those long citations easily put readers into sleep. As an academic book, it lacks a special perspective and has no argument. As a text book, it's hard to attract students because there is no story.

5 comments about Prince Leopold: The Untold Story of Queen Victoria's Youngest Son.

1. In the many books about Queen Victoria's family that I have read, Leopold seems to be known only for his haemophilia. He seems to have been the most popular member within the royal family, although not with his mother, who seemed to see him as a convenient drone. She was notorious for trying to keep her children on a leash long into adulthood. Leopold appears to have overcome these obstacles. In his short life, he accomplished a great deal, he was the first of the royal family to attend Oxford, he was on the boards of a great many charities, he managed to travel, and he worked as an unofficial secretary to his mother.

   This is a well written and researched book. The author provides information on other more obscure members of Queen Victoria's family, such as her half sister Feodora and her family. The family tree of the female side of Victoria's family is the most extensive and interesting I have seen, although it does not solve the question of where the haemophilia in the family came from.




2. I'd rate this less than zero, if the rating system allowed me to. This is completely lousy book and a huge waste of money! Many facts are wrong, which is a disgrace for someone of Ms. Zeepvat's experience. Her writing is flat and uninspiring and almost anything of interest is obtained from other books about the subject. Personally I'm sick of all these royal books that are basically re-packaged versions of previous books.



3. This is the first book, of the many I have read on Queen Victoria and/or her children, that focuses on Prince Leopold. Even reading the edited letters between Victoria and her daughter Vicky had very little mention of this child. The book was informative and I learned a great deal regarding her true obsessive and sometimes vicious behavior to Leopold, as a child and as a grown man. I highly recommend it.



4. This is a decent biography on Prince Leopold, although the author's theories on how he contracted hemophilia through his mother Queen Victoria was a little over my head, and the author could have made her explanation a bit more clearer. Also, I do wish the author would have made a family tree of Prince Leopold's descendents.



5. With this book, the author takes a welcome look at the life of Prince Leopold, fourth and youngest son of Queen Victoria. A fascinating prince, Leopold is one royal that history has more or less forgotten save his sad position as the first known royal hemophiliac. The earnest Leopold was highly intelligent (later Oxford educated), and desperate to live some semblance of a normal life, despite his illnesses (besides his hemophilia, Leopold was also likely a mild epileptic, both of which were not well-known outside of his family). His precarious health also made his already overbearing mother keep an even shorter leash on her youngest son, and his battles for a life separate from her were hard-won.
   
   Zeepvat is by profession a historian, and this book was definitely well-researched. The author includes much correspondence amongst a family of prolific letter-writers, and gives her audience an almost daily account of Leopold's activities and whereabouts. This approach also gives a well-rounded portrait of Leopold's personality, his thoughts on his illnesses, his struggles for independence, and his familial relationships. Aside from his dealings with Queen Victoria, Zeepvat also highlights Leopold's very close relationship with Alice, Grand Duchess of the small German principality of Hesse, and likewise her husband Louis. Zeepvat likewise describes Leopold's Oxford days well, along with the long-lasting friends he made there (Alice Liddell of Alice in Wonderland fame among them) and the happy memories he kept.
   
   The author also offers a theory on Leopold's hemophilia coming from Victoria's mother's family. Though the disease is passed to sons by their mothers, hemophilia was previously unknown on Victoria's maternal side. Hypotheses since Victoria's time have offered suggesting that Victoria's genes were perhaps mutated. Zeepvat points out what little was known about hemophilia even in Leopold's time, and further points out several young boys of Victoria's maternal family who died of what was thought to be usual childhood maladies of the times.
   
   The book is well-written in the fact that it is so rich in historical fact; however, Zeepvat's profession as a historian is evident, as the narrative is not particularly engaging. Also absent is much information on Leopold's wife, Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont. Though their marriage was brief (it lasted just short of two years, ending in Leopold's sudden death), Leopold had wanted to marry very badly as part of living a more ordinary life. He and Helena had a very happy relationship, unlike many arranged royal unions of the time, and had two children, a rare feat for a 19th century hemophiliac.
   
   Nonetheless, Zeepvat has provided a solid effort with this work on Leopold, giving her audience a good picture Leopold's life, one that was all too short and is remembered far too little.