No comments about The History of King Richard III (Hesperus Classics).

No comments about The Assassination of Princess Diana.

5 comments about Charles: Victim or Villain.

1. This book is very interesting! The author is obviously a GREAT fan of Prince Charles! From interviews that I have seen with the author, I fully expected a Diana-bashing book and I wasn't far from the mark! Just the mere fact that the Princess of Wales is not here to defend herself against these so-called "facts" of Ms. Junor's shows you what kind of diabolical mind the author has! Ms. Junor herself is making quite alot of money writing about the misfortunes of the Prince & Princess of Wales. I should hope that the proceeds for this book would go directly to royal charities and those who are TRUE victims all around the world! Surely Ms. Junor would not want to line her own pockets with this scathing book - or would she? Think on, Ms. Junor!



2. Where does the author get her evidence? First that Diana was first to cheat, second she threatened Camilla Parker Bowles. The book seems to justify the fact that Charles was involved with Mrs. Parker Bowles from even before the marriage and that it was alright because Diana was scheming and nasty to him. It tries to create a spin on the royal marriage favoring Charles and his liaison with Camilla. This is the book to buy if you are ardently pro-Charles and agree that Diana was completely to blame for the breakup of the marriage.



3. I knew when I picked up this book that Ms Junor was always very anti-Princess Diana - even when she was alive she was very outspoken - and was obviously very pro - Prince Charles. I had hoped though that with the death of the Princess even this hardened lady would present a balanced view of both sides. Instead I was left with the distinct impression that she had swallowed the whole "poor Charlie " line. It takes two to make a marriage and two to destroy it. But her bitterness towards both the princess and the Queen were quite frankly astonishing - especially for someone who used to be editor of the Majesty magazine. This lady has more chips on her shoulder than a totem pole.

   I was horrified when Ms Junor decided she had the right to take on the role of amateur psychiatrist. That for me - was the end. I finished the book - but at the end of it all her superior attitude and downright condemnation of the Princess was appalling. I have no illusions that the Princess was not perfect. But she sold the princess as someone so calculating and evil that it does not equate with anything the rest of the world saw. I am not sure any of us thrown into that kind of limelight at the age of 19 would have coped any better - most of us would not. That does not excuse bad behavior. We all behave badly but most of us do not have "staff" to tittle tattle and exagerate our worst points.

   I enjoyed certain parts of the book and learned a lot more about Prince Charles - assuming that that part of the book is a true and detatched discription. However - having just read the introduction to another biography where the biographer states that it is easy to become self absorbed with the person they are writing about and to loose their sense of detatchment. I feel that Ms Junor did not achieve that.




4. This book is very pro-Charles which was to be expected. After all, both author and Charles are still alive. Diana can't fight back. And who knows what the truth is anyway?

   There isn't anything really new in this book except details about how news of Diana's death was received at Balmoral, actions of Charles and the Queen then, etc. There are conflicts with other accounts I've read. Was Diana's face damaged? Was an autopsy done in Paris? Other sources said her face was unmarked and body was not autopsied until it was returned to London. It is little details like this that make me wonder about rest of the book. What is the truth?

   I continue to be amazed at the influence the press has in England. Do they really have that much control over the Royal Family? Apparently they just make stuff up and everyone believes it. The Royals are so out of touch and isolated. I think they should just be left alone and out of the newspapers like they used to be.




5. This is a run down on Prince Charles' behavior. A single guy(and a future king) cheats with his friend's(Andrew Parker-Bowles) wife(Camilla); then continues to cheat with this same married woman while engaged to Lady Diana.
   Then takes gifts to his married lover against the wishes of Lady Diana. On his honeymoon, tokens of his continuing love affair shows up in Camilla photos falling from his diary and cuff-links(two C's connecting).
   The new Princess of Wales is rightfully hurt and confused.
   This behavior of Charles hardly gets the marriage off to a good start.
   Throughout the marriage, Diana is witness to numerous occasions where Charles(through actions or words) declares his never-ending love for a married woman and continues with his adultery.
   Charles and Camilla showed as much disregard for Andrew Parker-Bowles' feelings as they did for Diana.
   What is especially upsetting is that rather than publicly admit he was a heartless, cheating man, Charles continued to portray himself as a loving husband to Diana and a respectable man who would one day be crowned king. He was willing to let his subjects believe he was an honorable man.
   Not only is the future king a cad, he is a liar as well!
   Besides there is NO evidence showing Diana as metally ill, un-balanced or anything before her association with Charles. As for her tantrums, I would site inmaturity and sheer frustration as the reasons for her outbursts.
   Diana was a normal, sane, healthy young woman prior to her engagement. Her bulminia did not start until after she moved to Buckingham Palace and she realized she was a Lamb to the Slaughter. It was then she realized her future husband did not love her and was very much committing adultery with a married woman. Adultery was something that Charles would continue to practice throughout their marriage.
   What is equally the mark of a cad, is Charles even cheated on his mistress!
   To write a book that basically white-washes Charles' moraless antics, is a disgrace and an insult to everyone's itelligence.
   He is a Villain if I ever saw one!!!!!

No comments about The Early Stewart Kings: Robert II and Robert III 1371-1406 (Stewart Dynasty in Scotland series).

4 comments about Public and Private Worlds of Elizabeth I.

1. The Public and Private Worlds of Elizabeth I is a nicely written look into her personal and private life. It is very informational; from the workings of Elizabethan politics to the fashion of the time. It is informative with out getting overly academic. It is great for anyone wishing to research and/or recreate aspects of that time period. I encourage anyone who is intererested in Elizabeth I to purchase this book. One of the greatest features of this book is the full color pictures. Definitely a must have!!! A wonderful coffee table book too.



2. Excellent, excellent book for anyone who is interested in Quenn Elizabeth I or the Elizabethan era. Interesting little tidbits of knowledge about court life, politics and Elizabeth's private life. The pictures are absolutely beautiful and go along so well with the the written text. Definate A+!



3. This work has a wealth of information about Elizabeth I and
   the era itself. She is portrayed as an elegant monarch, dressed
   in silk and other fine clothing. A portrait of Elizabeth
   depicts her stately appearance as a Tudor. Elizabeth liked to
   stroll in the area of the Great Hall at Hatfield. A personal
   astrolobe is depicted-a fine personal item created circa 1560.
   Her coronation was a stately affair depicted in a personal
   portrait considered to be priceless today. This work is perfect for historians and others interested in the period of Elizabeth. The full color portraits are valuable
   in their own right.



4. After checking this book out of the library multiple times, I decided to buy it because of the balanced overview of the Queen and her England. Many biographies of Queen Elizabeth I are riddled with the author's personal prejudice for or against the Queen and this one does not. I enjoy the photos as do students in the workshops I teach.

4 comments about Two Queens in One Isle.

1. By focusing on Elizabeth and Mary, and the national and international events that influenced them and their actions, both independant and in relation to one another, Alison Plowden beautifuly illuminates "the deadly relationship" between Elizabeth and Mary. Her writting reads like a novel, rending the history alive and vibrant. An excellent book.



2. I was a little disappointed with this book because it didn't cover any new ground for me. But more importantly, the style began to grate on me about half way through the book, to the point where I just wanted to get it over with. I felt Alison Plowden relied too heavily on extracts from comments and speeches made by people of that era. These were popped in every now and again which, for me, meant I would "lose the plot". I'd have to re-read sections because I couldn't remember what point was being made. And, not being an expert in "old English" (despite the fact that I was born in England, and my daughters keep telling me I'm old!), I'd sometimes struggle to understand what was being said. Still, this is only the humble opinion of one reviewer, and I'm sure that there would be a great many people to whom this style would be perfectly acceptable. Having said all that, it wasn't a "bad" book. I'm pleased I bought it, and wouldn't like to have missed out on reading it.



3. I love both of these women and their place in history, but Plowden's work leaves me cold. This could have been a fascinating, gripping, dynamic fiction tale of love, ambition, politics, history and royalty such as Susan Kay's "Legacy". Despite the alluring title, it's not. Not worth buying.



4. I read this book for a British History class and loved it. Plowden makes the history of the relationship between Elizabeth and Mary come alive with many anecdotes. She describes in such detail the way the two lived and the era that the reader can almost visualize it.

   I've read a few of her other books and they're all wonderful. But this one gives you more than just the stereotypical story you hear "Elizabeth felt threatened. Elizabeth had Mary beheaded." Plowden goes into great depth to show why the decision was so hard on Elizabeth and gave more than just the cursory examintion of Mary's character.

   Wonderful read - not just for a class but for pleasure-reading as well!

No comments about Young Wilhelm: The Kaiser's Early Life, 1859-1888.

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.

5 comments about Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy.

1. Fans of the usual kinds of biographies about kings and princes should be careful about this one. It's a very good book, but it's likely to be very far from the sort of thing you're expecting. But then, King Juan Carlos of Spain's life has been very different from that of most modern royals. In a sense, this book is hardly even "about" him at all. Rather, it's an in-depth look at a transitional era in Spanish history, as well as at the man who, in many ways, was the pivot on which that transition turned. People looking for that kind of book will be rewarded here.
   
   Let me expand a little on what this book isn't, because I think that's important. There's not really very much in these pages about Juan Carlos' life outside the political realm. For example, the author mentions in passing toward the end of the book the king's "obsession with speed and with expensive sports in which he risked his life and which frequently caused him serious accidents and injuries" (p. 511). In most royal biographies, those kinds of things would be central to the story. Here, they're barely an aside. Likewise, Queen Sophia hardly appears here except tangentially in a political context. The Infantas and Prince Felipe show up even less. Is this book a well-rounded look at Juan Carlos as a man? No.
   
   But then, it doesn't seem like it's intended to be. What this book is, as I said, is a look at the king's role in helping Spain move from the Francoist dictatorship to the current popular democracy. That role was a central one -- not only at key moments like dismantling the 1981 coup attempt, but also in slowly, quietly, and yet unrelentingly keeping in check the forces that wanted to maintain Francoism even after the Caudillo's death in 1975.
   
   In telling this story, Paul Preston has produced a well-researched and well-sourced book that at times is almost overwhelming with its depth and detail. This is a book thick with names, dates, meetings, quotations ... I frankly found it slow going at times. Around page 300, I found myself asking (as I'm sure the people of Spain asked at the time), "Isn't Franco dead YET?!" Preston's discussion of the controversy about legalizing the Communist Party of Spain similarly seemed to go on for a really long time. And how many times did he need to repeat that the adolescent Juan Carlos' wishes were not consulted in the high-level negotiations between his father and Franco over how he was to be educated?
   
   A bit of familiarity with Spanish history and government would be useful to the reader too. Perhaps Preston assumes his reader has already read his biography of Franco, since he's pretty thin on what exactly the Spanish Civil War was all about, why Alfonso XIII had to leave Spain, and what precisely the oft-mentioned principles of the *Movimiento* really were. Similarly, Preston is quick to throw out names, events, and acronyms without always taking the time to explain who or what they are, or why (or if) they matter.
   
   Yet ultimately, all the depth, all the detail, all the exhaustive documentation has produced a volume that may be, at least in English, the definitive look at King Juan Carlos and his role in the restoration of Spain's monarchy and democracy. Preston emphasizes the weight of the king's personal sacrifice throughout his life in order to put Spain back on a solid democratic footing, and the truly central role he did (and does) play in that process. As he notes on page 474, for example, if the king had chosen to support the 1981 coup, there's no question it would have succeeded. That he chose not to support it doomed it to failure.
   
   The world of royal biography -- especially biography of still-living or recently-deceased figures -- is filled with shallow puffery and fawning adulation. When something different comes along, fans of royalty as well as serious historians should snap it up. This volume definitely falls into that category -- not only for its value as a work of history, but also as proof of how monarchy can and ought to be a force for good, even in an era which has tended to turn its back on that form of government. As a noted political commentator wrote following the collapse of the 1981 coup attempt (quoted on page 488), "Whilst we Spaniards thought that we deserved something better than a king, it turns out that we have a king that we don't deserve."



2. Royalty demands sycophancy from its subjects, and this is especially the case for royal biography. Notwithstanding that it doesn't take too much for people to realize that most monarchs are deeply unattractive people. Whether it is the selfish, irresponsible house of Savoy so acutely delineated in Denis Mack Smith's Italy and its Monarchy, or the houses of Hohenzollern and Romanov leading their countries to disaster, or the fundamentally mediocre British monarchy as seen in the essays of David Cannadine, or for that matter Juan Carlos' irresponsible, shallow brother-in-law, Constantine II, the last king of Greece, monarchs are people who believe the rest of the world owes them a living.
   
   In 1931 it seemed that the Spanish branch of the Bourbons had met its own well-deserved fate, as King Alfonso went into exile and his countrymen formed a democratic republic. As Preston puts it, the royal family does not take exile well. Hemophiliac uncles, morganatic marriages, adulterous affairs, a deaf and dumb uncle whose son will be used by Preston to make Juan Carlos' life even more miserable, it all looked most unpromising. One detail that comes to mind is a picture of a four year old Juan Carlos in military uniform. It was only after he had been standing in it for hours that people realized that his books were too small and his feet had been rubbed raw. But on the whole this is a picture of Juan Carlos that is fairly sympathetic to him. After he appears on the scene, there is little gossip of the Eurotrash aspect of things. (Although we do learn that Juan Carlos accidentally shot his brother to death.)
   
   Juan Carlos, born in 1938, and his father Don Juan had to find a way to restore the monarchy after the Spanish Civil war. The problem was simple. Franco at the time made monarchist sentiments and many monarchists were among his followers. The problem was that he had no desire of sharing power with anyone, and himself had little respect for the previous monarchy which had tolerated a limited parliamentarianism. He suspected Don Juan might try to reconcille his divided country, and remove it from Franco's regime of divine vindictiveness. The problem for Don Juan, who spent most of Franco's reign living in Portugal, was that he had little to offer and little power to use it. Although much of the Francoist elite would have prefered to see a monarchy, they were not going to risk their power trying to force the issue. And so for until 1968 Don Juan waited, endured Franco's condescension and lies, occasionally got angry, was separated from his son for long periods of time at considerable psychological stress for both of them, and ended up doing what Franco wanted. Franco got the idea that Juan Carlos might be more ameneable to Francoist propaganda and so in 1948 he was sent to Spain and educated under Falangist tuetalage. Finally after two decades of toying with them, Franco made Juan Carlos, not his father, his heir apparent.
   
   Juan Carlos' prospects were not promising. Being made heir was better than having to look over his shoulders at Carlist and other pretenders. But now he, although of generally liberal opinions, was stuck in a regime that was firmly reactionary. Franco had no desire to step down, and would remain in power almost until the very end. Consistently he and his entourage took the most reactionary path. Had his prime minister Carrero Blanco not been assassinated in 1973 by Basque separatists, the transition to democracy would have been much more difficult. And even when Franco grew less malevolent as old age, senility and death came upon him (the last a process that took months to complete) Juan Carlos still had to worry about the reactionary entourage of Franco's wife.
   
   And then Preston discusses how Juan Carlos managed to ease out the more reactionary Francoists from the cabinet, got the more moderate Suarez to make a transition to power, and, most dramatic of all, stopped the coup of February 1981 by making his clear his unconditional oppostion to it. For this transition to democracy Juan Carlos is beloved by his subjects and the Spanish monarchy appears as stable as Britain, Scandinavia and the Benelux countries. There are some points I would like to mention here. For a start, although there is new detail, much of the storyline can be seen in Preston's earlier books "Franco" and "The Triumph of Spanish Democracy." Second, one should point out that Juan Carlos was assisted by the Spanish Socialist and Communist parties, who agreed to let Juan Carlos remain, instead of pointing out that he had no popular mandate to do so. Third, it does seem unfair that the Spanish monarchy should get the credit for Juan Carlos' bravery, since the same crisis is not likely to be repeated again, and the absence of republicanism in contemporary Spain appears less as an act of gratitude than the whole post-socialist failure of imagination.



3. The complete title of Paul Preston's book on the present Spanish monarch-- "Juan Carlos, Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy"--says it all. If you want to read about the king and his love of fast cars and beautiful women, consult the tabloids. Several biographies of his wife, Queen Sofía, a woman admired and beloved by most Spaniards for her strength, humanity, and dignity, have been written in Spanish. There are also many magazine articles about her in both Spanish and English. The author does assume that the reader has some knowledge of Spanish history. For those who don't, he has written a number of other books on the subject ("The Coming of the Spanish Civil War", "The Points of Revenge", and "A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War").
   
   When I lived in Spain in the sixties, the prevailing opinion of most of my friends was that, when Franco died, the society would plunge in another civil war as Juan Carlos would never be able to stand up to the generals and lead the country toward becoming a democracy. Undoubtedly this is one of the reasons I found fascinating the abundance of details of how the king was able to do exactly that. Preston's book is a complete study of the process that does not cater to sensationalism. For that I also consider it a "masterpiece".



4. If I were rating this book on content alone, Preston would get 5 stars. However, his writing style hampers him somewhat. This unique biography traces what is supposedly the life of King Juan Carlos of Spain, a man for whom I have immense respect, from the fall of Alfonso XIII to the present, but it winds up being a historical analysis of the transition of Spain out of the Franco regime, similar to Preston's Triumph of Democracy in Spain, which I read for school, only longer and with more focus on Juan Carlos. I was initially disappointed because I wanted personal information about the king, [...]Or somehow get a copy of The King by Jose Luis de Vilallonga (good luck, I had to order it used from Australia). However, this book contains more information and analysis about Francoist and post-Francoist Spain than you will ever need in your entire life. Preston tells the tale largely with a mind for the role of Juan Carlos in it (the manipulation by his father, the restoration, the initial democratic difficulties, etc.) but this winds up being so complex that he constantly goes elsewhere. I liked the book but you need to read it in small chunks, because his writing is exhausting. It's very complex and dry and full of untranslated Spanish and acronyms, so don't read this while you're tired or you won't remember a thing. Preston obviously has a lot of enthusiasm for the subject, though, which comes across in his writing and the sheer volume of the work. Buy this book if you want a long, scholarly read!



5. I made the mistake of thinking this was just a biography on Juan Carlos but instead its a complex read on Spain during the dictatorship and how it became a democrarcy again. It was a good book and well written but a little difficult to understand.

No comments about Beaufort: The Duke and His Duchess, 1657-1715 (Yale Historical Publications Series).