5 comments about Wilhelm II, Vol. 2: Emperor and Exile, 1900-1941 (Cecil, Lamar//Wilhelm II).

1. Lamar Cecil presents a suspenseful yet satisfying book in Willhelm II. Not only does he express the inner thoughts of Willhelm, yet shows a personal side which expresses the crown prince's poryphia stricken reduced him to a stalk raving mad wildabeast. Not only was he stalk raving mad, the wildabeast confronted his homosexual tendencies with Eulenburg and Walderee.



2. For the past several years Ihave been a student of late 19th and early 20th century Europe. A starting place had to be found, which is much easier said than done. My readings kept leading me back to Germany, i.e., Prussia. I only wish I had discovered Professor Cecil earlier. His two-part biography of Wilhelm II has proved indispensable. I can't fathom reading one volume without the other, but since this review speaks to Volume II, "Wilhelm II,Emperor and Exile, 1900-1941,we'll have a go. The best way to read Volume II is to read the last sentence of the book first, where Professor Cecil applies a paraphrase from the Duke of Wellington who was describing the late George IV. Cecil thusly applies it to Wilhelm: "a sovereign who lived and died without having been able to assert so much as a single claim on the gratitude of posterity." The joy of the book is getting to that last sentence. It's all in there: feuding with his uncle, King Edward VII of England; the "Mad Hare" Telegraph article; the absolute idiocy of the naval arms race with England;his ill-fated dependence on the rotting Habsburg Empire; his hatred of any form of parlimentary government; and finally his almost tragic descent when he had lost the confidence of German Military Command, members of his own family, and millions of the German people. Good books on Wilhelm are hard to find. This one, especially when taken with Volume I, is outstanding.



3. For a German history junkie, these volumes are a good 'fix'. The text is written humorously and yet fairly, without the usual bias one sees when "the victor writes the history". The analysis of the last Kaiser's life is placed in the context of the monarchical attitude of 19th century Europe, as well as the influence that his relatives in the British Empire had on his outlook. I've read the books twice. Without understanding at least some german it would be difficult to get the complete gist of what the author is trying to convey without it.



4. One of the most critically acclaimed studies of Wilhelm II is Lamar Cecilýs two-volume biography (1989, 1996 ), deemed by one reviewer as ýthe best-available English treatment of the waning years of the last Kaiserý available. Cecilýs portrait of Wilhelm is largely critical: the emperor ruled ýmaladroitly,ý throughout a ýbarren career that was without virtue or accomplishmentý (ix); ýbluster, rhetoric, and natural swagger cloaked a profound emptiness, for ignorance and self-indulgence were his primary characteristics.ý (1). Cecilýs assessment of the Kaiserýs war role is no less disapproving. ýDomestic issues rarely interested Wilhelm II,ý he notes (191), and emphasizes that the Kaiser was far more enamored by foreign policy and military minutiae. Despite this martial enthusiasm, Wilhelm was ýby nature peaceful,ý (194) and opposed war in 1914, afraid that a European conflict would distract Germany from the internal threat of socialism.
   Once the war began, Cecil shows, Wilhelmýs function was symbolic and superficial, at least as far as the imperial army was concerned. He often resided close to the front, was occasionally exposed to hostile fire, and relished hearing the roar of the guns. Cecil makes it clear that the Kaiserýs duties were limited to sending telegrams, war zone tours, medal presentations and other purely ceremonial tasksýýit was as empty an existence as he had had in peacetime.ý Cecil flatly asserts that Wilhelmýs ýpart in the war, especially as it concerned the army, took a secondary place behind the role of his officers.ý (210). He was for the most part shielded by his ubiquitous military entourage, fearful that his inability to ýwithstand the strains of warfareý would break him. ýThe Kaiserýs ignorance of the true nature of the struggle in which Germany was engaged,ý Cecil frankly summarizes, ýwas profound and his utility to his military leaders quite limited.ý He was in essence a figurehead, ýcontent merely to hear and endorseý the opinions of his generals. Soon after the war began, Cecil concludes, Wilhelm became ýa ýshadow Kaiserý (schattenkaiser), out of sight, neglected, and relegated to the sidelines in imperial Germanyýs hour of trial.ý (212)

   This is the gold standard of Kaiser Wilhelm II biographies.




5. Lamar Cecil should be applauded for writing an objective biography of Wilhelm II. Whilst this volume is in keeping with the high standards of the first, I am a little bit disappointed that his life after his 1918 abdication is a bit too sketchy, possibly due to the fact that Wilhelm II managed to outlive most of his contemporaries. This book is not about Wilhelmine dilpomatic history, or the Great War, but a well researched treatise on the malignant effects of autocratic rule by an unstable, pompous incompetent.

2 comments about St. Margaret Queen of Scotland.

1. This book was first published in 1993, in time for the 900th anniversary celebrations of Margaret's death. Herein lies one of the major problems with this book as it accepts the official line of the organisers of the anniversary celebrations and does not seek to question some of the more mythical aspects of Margaret's life.

   The book is easy to read but unfortunately trots out the traditional stereotypes about Margaret's life without providing much analysis of the small yet available body of chronicle evidence. Many of the current debates, particularly those dealing with the true extent of her pious works as Queen of Scotland, are largely glossed over and sometimes the author seems to be caught up in the cult of personality that continues to surround Margaret.

   Wilson and Selby provide a useful starting point for those who want to know more about this elusive figure, however I would advise caution about accepting some of the myths about Margaret's family origins, birthplace and life which constitutes the proliferation of legends which are now being called into question by some notable academics.




2. Having read another reviewer's dismissive opinion of this book, I was prepared to be underwhelmed. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised by this book, although my previous understanding was admittedly based on pamphlets and short hagiographic summaries.
   
   I do think it is hilarious that the author proposes that King Malcolm's first wife, Ingibiorg, must have been an undocumented daughter of King Malcolm's dead rival Thorfinn of Orkney (who co-ruled Scotland with MacBeth), rather than exploring the possibility that she was the widow of his rival (and, if so, much older than Malcolm). The author doesn't speculate on what could have provoked Margaret to argue for such a sweeping change to marital customs (banning levirate and other 'inheritance' marriages) - cited as one of the five great works for which she deserved to be sainted. I think waiting two years for an elderly wife to die, or worse, nursing an aged first wife after marrying Malcolm, could have provided such passion. I admit, it could have been the then-almost commonplace practice of murdering relatives to obtain property through marriage to widows, without reference to any interesting factoids about Malcolm's first marriage.
   
   Unless you are thoroughly steeped in cutting edge research into Saint Margaret's life, I think you would find this an interesting and informative book.

2 comments about Royal Charles: Charles II and the Restoration.

1. In this wonderful book, Antonia chronicles the doings of the 17th-century royal Stuart family in such detail that I for one feel as though I lived among them. At this locus in space-time we probably know more about Charles II than did his own family. We know, for example, that he was a paid French agent for most of his reign.
   
   That Charles II was the man for the job and the times and may have been Britain's best king is hard to dispute. He was certainly the first people's king. His handling of government foreshadowed the checks and balances developed more formally in the next century, but he did not formulate it into a doctrine. That is simply the way it happened.
   
   The Stuarts acquired the throne of Britain through Mary, Queen of Scots, who descended from a Tudor. Elizabeth Tudor had her executed, but not before she married had a son with the unfortunate alcoholic, Darnley. The boy was taken from his mother to be raised a Protestant and became James I on the death of Elizabeth, who died without heir.
   
   The reign of James I (of King James Bible fame) was happy and prosperous and his son, Charles I, was looking forward to the same. History did not smile on this upright but unlucky king. Society bolted under him, so to speak, and threw him from his horse. The Swiss reform crept down the Rhine and across the channel and lodged in Britain as numerous sects of Puritanism. Meanwhile, the creeping disease of enclosure, the seizure of formerly public lands by private individuals interested in raising sheep and selling wool, and the subsequent forced evacuation of those lands, was slowly but surely building a fury in the common man. Charles I found that he could not govern.
   
   Successive parliaments called in the hope of financial relief became ever more unruly until at last they refused to be dismissed! Not the brightest man, though a decent one, Charles I failed to see the impending end of absolute monarchy. He made a fatal mistake, sending soldiers into parliament to arrest 5 MPs, who evaded him anyway. The English Civil War was on. The king ultimately surrendered to parliamentary forces. He might have been spared, but he refused to cooperate in any way with the diminution of the divine right of kings. The parliamentarians played their trump card of executing the king (1649), a blunder on their part. His death aroused mainly grief and horror.
   
   Faced with overwhelming adversity, Charles II was not overwhelmed. He shone like the star he was. There are few other teen-age generals in history, but that is what he became fighting for his father, and alone after 1649. Often seen in the front line leading the charge, he was born under a lucky star, surviving somehow. Even Cromwell admitted that his last battle, the Battle of Worcester, was the hardest fought of the war. The king went dodging through the countryside, hiding out in a huge oak while the soldiers beat the bushes for him. He escaped to France and then other points, with the help mainly of ordinary people.
   
   Charles' exile whetted his talents and forged his future. He and ragamuffin court were often without knowledge of the source of their next meal. He kept on wheeling and dealing, unsuccessfully. He lifted their spirits by creating a sort of ongoing pool party, which moved from country to country and estate to estate. They derived their emotional support from this circle of intimacy, which went on after the king was restored.
   
   And he was restored. Cromwell died. His son, "Tumbledown Dick", was not up to the job of being the lord high protector of the Commonwealth. The army had kept Charles under constant surveillance wherever he went. They knew that he was an extraordinarily talented man. To avoid disintegration of the government and renewed conflict between factions, General Monck convinced parliament to restore Charles, rather suddenly, with but short notice, in 1660.
   
   And what a resoration it was! A fleet of refurbished ships sailed from Holland and a small army of royalists dressed in the very finest uniforms money could buy paraded through the streets of London with the king flanked by his brothers, all at the center of a roaring crowd. The king knew exactly what they wanted and he spared no expense to give it to them. He had thoroughly learned that God may give kings a divine right to rule, but only through the medium of the people.
   
   The party went on. Charles and his wife and mistresses and a total of 12 illegitimate children lived happily together in Whitehall Palace. The queen, a Portuguese princess, was unfortunately barren, but the king did not desert her on that account. He was content to pass on the succession to his brother, James II. The author compares this arrangement to that of the cruel Henry the 8th, who executed his successive wives so that he could get on to the next one. The king owned horses, dogs and yachts. Sometimes he raced his own horses. He associated freely with all walks of life. He despised to put on royal airs.
   
   Meanwhile a steady stream of sparks flew from the flint of his creative genius. He forgave his enemies (except the regicides). He was as often in parliament as the MPs themselves, arguing his point of view himself. He created the first standing army in Britain, using its offices as a means to reward friends and placate enemies. He founded the Royal Society, built the observatory at Greenwich, built a hospital, personally assisted in fighting the great fire of London, and hired Christopher Wren to rebuild the burned area.
   
   In politics the king and parliament often disagreed. He called them when he needed money. They passed laws and granted or refused the money. All the same old issues still existed, but now neither side was willing to start a civil war over them. King and parliament in fact checked and balanced each other, even though no constitution defined them. Seeking to be less dependent on parliament, the king made a secret treaty with Louis the 14th, by which he would become a pro-French advocate in exchange for a large annuity. It wasn't as bad as it seems. The king's mother was French. Family connections were already in place. The king had to agree to become Catholic, which he only dared to do on his deathbed, after apologizing for taking so long to die.
   
   This work by Fraser might as well have been an epic poem, lacking only the versification. We laugh or weep as it soars into sublimity or pathos and we yawn at the tedious details of the king's devious machinations. A word of warning. The author takes a totally royalist view. She has no space or inclination to present the details of the rebel cause. Reading this book, we wonder why those stubborn parliamentary fools held out against such a jolly good fellow as the king. Perhaps the lives of the Stuarts were so interesting and momentous as to compel their biographers to loyalty.



2. If you enjoy biographical works that are not only full of information but convey a sense of the actual character, this book is for you. Immensely readable account of a king with more than the usual share of strengths and weaknesses, surprisingly varied interests, and even a sense of humor as well as irony. Admittedly I find Restoration England to be one of the single most historical periods and Charles II is its poster child. This books is an excellent means to getting a broad view of the period and this interesting ruler.

No comments about Charles.

No comments about I'll Tell the Jokes Arthur.

1 comments about Ladies Of The Bedchamber: The Role Of The Royal Mistress.

1. Friedman is clearly more a psychologist than an historian, because throughout the book he has the family relations of the royals in this book often completely messed up. His most stupid fault is calling King William IV "Silly Billy" (even in the title of the chapter about him); "Silly Billy" was the nickname of William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester, a cousin and brother-in-law of King William IV.
   The book is not really about "the role played by the royal mistress" or "the effects of extramarital sex on marriage", as the author claims. It's more about the influence of one's upbringing on one's later sex life, both for the royal and his mistresses. The youth and relations of both the Kings and their paramours are described in much detail. In my opinion, he oversimplifies the complicated reality of relationships by explaining everything in terms of childhood needs.
   Nevertheless, the book is easy to read and Friedman sheds a new light on Wallis Simpson's behavior during the abdication crisis.

2 comments about Alfred: Warrior King.

1. This book gives a standard treatment of Alfred the Great's history and the unpleasantness visited upon England by the Danes. It's focus is on the strategy and tactics employed by Alfred in his campaigns, his guerilla war directed from Athelney, organization of a navy, and fortification of the strategically sited burhs.

   It's a fast read and written by a veteran of the Burma campaign in World War II so it is chock full of soldierly insights regarding logistics, terrain, and morale. Although focused on Wessex, the Danes, Franks, Mercians, East Anglians, Northumbrians and the Welsh are not ignored as participants in the various Viking raids and eventual settlements occurring in Northwest Europe. There is a great deal of emphasis on the routes by which various forces moved across England and the trackways, Roman roads, and waterways used are given detailed descriptions.

   I enjoyed it as a sort of Pop military history of Alfred.




2. While serving as an insightful working on the history of Afred, strictly from a military stand point, the depth of those chapters far outstrip the human characteristics of Alfred. A good read, but only for the diehard Alfred fans who want to know everything there is to know, even the dry hard facts, about Alfred's military campaigns.

5 comments about Last Days of the Romanovs.

1. Complete, shocking story of how, and why, the Soviet secret police massacred Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, and their five children. As head of the dynasty that had ruled Russia for three centuries, Nicholas II personified his land and people. His cold-blooded murder by order of Lenin and Sverdlov was thus symbolic of the Communist effort to obliterate a rich national and cultural heritage, and presaged the terrible Soviet bloodletting of later years. Dramatic yet meticulous account by a veteran British journalist and historian, based on the official on-site inquest of Russian investigator Nikolai Sokolov -- the most thorough ever conducted. As special correspondent in Russia for the London Times during the years of revolution and civil war, the author writes with authority and rare candor. He forthrightly assigns responsibility for the historic crime, showing the role of racial-ethnic revenge in motivating the killers. The crucial Jewish role in the Communist takeover of Russia and the early Bolshevik regime is detailed in an eye-opening introduction by historian Mark Weber, and an appendix by the author. Attractive, updated new edition of an authoritative but long-suppressed work. A generous selection of rare and revealing photographs supplements the text.



2. The book is violently anti-Semitic. More importantly for an informed reader, it is so inaccurate that it is useless for anybody but historians exploring the investigation of Romanov murders. Wilton's hatred of Jews clouded his mind to the extent that he was unable to establish even the most basic facts concerning the case, although he had ample opportunity to interview a significant number of key witnesses and had access to evidence now lost. Wilton was fired from London's "Times" for being unreliable, in 1919 the British High Commission wanted him recalled and Foreign Office often branded him a liar and an embarrassment.



3. I have been meaning to get around to this book for a long time and am happy now to have finally read it. The book is well written and meticulously documented. Wilton's perspective in writing this book in the 1920's just after the Great War, is extremely important for one who would evaluate it objectively. Keep in mind that this book was written at a time when anti-German propaganda in England was at its height. If anything, the book is anti-German in tone. That some reviewers have chosen to style it "anti-Semitic" merely demonstrates how frightened certain individuals are of any relevation of the truth.
   
   Within the corpus of this important book is laid bare the monstrous plan of the fiends who usurped Holy Russia and who ritually murdered the entire Romanov family. This included not just Saint Nicholas II and Alexandra, but also their daughters and son. Included in the carnage were also the surviving close relatives of the Tsar. The monsters who took over Holy Russia felt that they had to kill the entire family. This demonstrates for all to see the level of their deviltry.
   
   The destruction of Holy Russia was symbolized by the murder of the Romanov family. And this act symbolically signified the end of the Constantian era. Moscow was truly the Third Rome, following Rome itself and then Constantinople. The final symbolic act, which revealed the mind of the murderers was the consecration by the bloody Bolsheviks of Judas Iscariot. What more significant sigil could there be of the anti-Christian mind set of the monsters who destroyed Holy Russia?
   
   The book is excellent. Read it. And be enriched and blessed by the experience.



4. When I was in high school, I found "Last Days .. " in the library and every time I came across it could not put it down. I tried and tried to find copies in used book stores, but it was never available until the new edition came out. I was exceedingly happy to find this book available.
   
   Mr. Wilton gives the best account of the murders of the Royal Family available until the fall of communism, when the work of researchers who had labored secretly to solve the mystery and find the remains of Nicholas and his family was revealed. And Yurovsky's report of the murders was retrieved from the archives.
   
   This book is not anti-semitic. It is factual: the new appendice is very useful in illustrating the prominence of jewish individuals in the creation of soviet Russia. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that information. Karl Marx himself was jewish.



5. _The Last Days of the Romanovs: How Tsar Nicholas II and Russia's Imperial Family Were Murdered_, first published in 1920 and republished here by the Institute for Historical Review, written by British journalist Robert Wilton is a fascinating account of the untimely murders of the Russian tsar Nicholas II and his family which fully explores who was really behind these murders. Robert Wilton was the correspondent of the London _Times_ in Russia for over 17 years and this book details his account of what happened to the Russian tsar which led to the rise of Bolshevism. As Mark Weber notes in his Preface, while Russia was not without its problems during the time of the tsar, his untimely murder and the murder of his own family was entirely unnecessary and indeed for many the tsar has come to take on the status of a martyr. Indeed, according to this Preface, Tsar Nicholas II has been canonized by the independent "Orthodox Church Abroad" in 1981 and the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church has been under similar pressure to break taboo and take the same step. This book maintains that an overwhelming Jewish presence was behind the murder of the tsar, but also tries to blame the German Kaiser for involvement in the "Red Revolution". As has been pointed out by Igor Shafarevich, a dissident Russian mathematician, in his book _Russophobia_, an amazingly large number of Jews were involved in the personnel of the Russian secret police. However, it should be noted that ultimately the Soviet state turned on the Jews when Stalin began persecuting them. This book offers a fascinating account of the untimely death and murder of the Russian tsar Nicholas II and his entire family. This truly tragic and hateful incident represents a low point in Russian history which ushered in the Bolshevik terror. This book also includes several important pictures showing details from the activities of the royal family, their servants, their murderers, and some of the forensic evidence involved in the case.
   
   The first chapter of this book is entitled "Prologue" and explains how Nicholas II, his wife, and family came to be martyred at Ekaterinburg on the night of July 16, 1918 along with their faithful attendants by the Bolsheviks. The author explains that fear of plots by anti-Bolshevik forces (the Whites) to rescue and free the tsar cannot be used as extenuating circumstances to excuse this heinous act. The author notes that many tales have circulated about this ghastly series of murders and explains how he came to be involved in reporting on them. He notes his visit to the Ipatiev house where the victims had lived, noting the forensic evidence of the case including bullet-holes in the wall and bloodstains as well as inscriptions in Hebrew, German, and Magyar. The second chapter of this book is entitled "The Stage and the Actors". Here, the author explains the critical actors that were involved in the killings. The author explains the alleged German and Jewish role behind the killings noting the influence of the ideology of Karl Marx on the revolutionaries. The author notes the role of Ludendorff as well as some of Lenin's "fellow travelers" in the Bolshevik revolution. The third chapter of this book is entitled "No Escape: Alexandra Misjudged". Here, the author explains the special role of Rasputin for the Russian empress, noting also the hatred that was felt for the empress, and her pro-German sympathies, as well as the role of the Hesse disease on the imperial family. The fourth chapter of this book is entitled "Rasputin the Peasant". The author shows how this peasant Rasputin came to have an obscure relationship with the Russian empress. The author details Rasputin's alleged occult powers which he dismisses as well as the tendency of the empress to dabble in black magic, including the visits of occultist individuals like Philippe, Papus, and Badmaiev (a dabbler in Tibetan medicine) to the Russian palace. The author also notes the details of Rasputin's murder by Purishkevitch. The fifth chapter of this book is entitled "'The Tsar is Innocent'". Here, the author explains how various rumors circulated about the tsar some maintaining that he was a traitor and in secret communication with the Germans. The author explains how the empress and her family came to be arrested by General Kornilov and how subsequently the tsar was arrested too in the palace. From there, the prisoners were taken away to Tobolsk. The sixth chapter is entitled "Exile in Siberia" and explains the exile of the tsar and his family in Siberia in the period between August 1917 and the following spring. The author explains the life of the family at Tobolsk including their relationship with the priest Father Vasiliev. The seventh chapter of this book is entitled "Moscow and Berlin" and explains the connection between these two cities as well as the role of the Germans. The eighth chapter of this book is entitled "Via Crucis" and further details the cruel treatment of the tsar and his family at Ekaterinburg at the Ipatiev house. The ninth chapter of this book is entitled "Calvary" and explains how the tsar and his family came to be shot as witnessed to by three eyewitnesses. The author explains the smears against the tsar that he was an "arch-capitalist" and "drinker of blood" used against him to justify his brutal murder. The ninth chapter of this book is entitled "'Without Trace'" and explains what happens after the murder and some of the forensic evidence involved in the case. The tenth chapter of this book is entitled "'Murder Will Out'" and details some of the evidence found at the death-house. Among other details this chapter examines the various clues and articles of the Romanovs which were found. This chapter also explains the inscription from Heine in German found in the death-chamber. This inscription from a poem by the Jew Heine explains the fate of Belshazzar, a Gentile king slain for having offended Israel. The twelfth chapter of this book is entitled "All the Romanovs" and explains the murders of the rest of the Romanovs and the "Red Inquisition". The thirteenth chapter of this book is entitled "The Jackals" and explains the failure of the Omsk Government largely composed of Socialist Revolutionaries to concern themselves with the murder of the tsar and his family. The fourteenth chapter of this book is entitled "By Order of the `Tsik'" and explains the "Tsik" (the Central Executive Committee) in trying the tsar and "sentencing" him to death. This committee feared the Russian people and the Romanovs and was largely composed of Jews. As the author notes, Soviet Russia consecrated three individuals and erected monuments to them - Karl Marx, Judas Iscariot, and Leo Tolstoy (reprensenting respectively the Revolution, Apostasy, and Anarchism; two of them being Jews). The fifteenth chapter is entitled "The Red Kaiser" and explains the alleged role of the German Kaiser in promoting the Red Revolution (though as Mark Weber notes in his Preface some of these claims may be problematic and have been prompted by anti-German hysteria brought on by the First World War; afterall, it should be noted that the Russian Tsar Nicholas II, the German Kaiser Wilhelm, and England's King George were all first cousins!). The sixteenth and final chapter is an "Epilogue" which goes through some of the relics found at the Ipatiev house and explains the suffering of the royal family there, where even their poor dog was brutally killed. The author notes that in addition to the words of Heine concerning "Belsatzar", various mysterious inscriptions were found in the death chamber that remain indecipherable as well as the swastika used as a symbol of good luck by the empress Alexandra. The book ends with appendices detailing the members of the imperial family, a chronology of events, and some of the other many names that have appeared in connection with the murders, as well as the Statement of Pavel Medvedev, a Brief History of Russian Jewry, and an appendix detailing the Jewish Role in the Early Soviet Regime.
   
   This book offers a disturbing account of the tragic events that led to the brutal murder of the Russian tsar and his imperial family. These murders were truly brutal and entirely uncalled for. Further, this brought in a reign of tyranny under the Bolshevik oppressors and the rise of the Soviet state. As such, this remains an important story to be told for all those who seek to reclaim the true history of Russia.

5 comments about Lilibet: An Intimate Portrait of Elizabeth II.

1. Initially, I was wary of reading this book. I thought it had a pretty cover and a relatively intriguing title, but didn't figure that Elizabeth II would be anyone who was fascinating enough to write about. But nonetheless, envisioning a book filled with an agonizingly boring chronicle of this seemingly "deadly dull" woman's life, I began "Lilibet."

   And was I ever in for a surprise! Carolly Erickson has done an outstanding job with this biography and completely captured the essence of this queen. The pages keep turning, and it is one of the highest compliments I can give to a biography to say that it "reads" like a good novel-I can certainly say that in this case. Chronicling the Queen's life from birth until 2002, Erickson uses a winning "formula" to ensure a satisfyingly complex character portrait.

   Granted, the simple factual matter of "Lilbet" was admirable. Yet other characteristics make "Lilibet" so enjoyable. First, I enjoyed the quotes/testimonials from the queen and others that Erickson used. It sometimes seems in a biography that the quotes chosen are unremarkable and cliche, yet "Lilibet" includes sparklingly memorable quotes from those who know Elizabeth as well as intriguing "morsels" from the queen herself.

   Furthermore, "Lilibet" was enhanced by the way English history (and crucial royal family events) were woven into the story line. These happenings are presented to the reader in a clear and interesting manner, and as said, they add richness to the story. Time and time again, Erickson deftly shows how events like the World War 2, the Wallis Simpson incident, and the scandals recently plaguing the royal family played their part in the life of the Queen.

   But best of all, the author shows excellent psychological insights during her writing. When I think about why exactly I found this book so fascinating, I realize that it was due in part to the sharply intelligent analysis of Lilibet's character. Erickson does not portray the queen as a "whitened" saint or as a cruel elderly woman-she seems to understand and empathize with the queen's character enough to see both the good and the bad in it.

   Solid facts, expert inclusion of history and background information, memorable psychological insight, and just plain an interesting read! What an EXCELLENT biography!




2. A very readable biography but I agree with the previous reviewer that it tends to be a bit on the light and fluff side. Many of her citations for quotes turn out to be from other biographies, most notably Kitty Kelly's THE ROYALS which diminished the seriousness of the work for me. But still, an interesting portrait that highlights the ordinary humanness of the Queen.



3. Having read a number of biographies of Queen Elizabeth II (beginning with The Little Princesses in the 1950s), I can only say that while Erickson does not engage in scandal and innuendo, she is too light-weight to be taken seriously. Any biographer who would refer to Her Majesty as "Lilibet" (only used by immediate family) even when discussing the Queen at the advanced age of 60 and 70 is too silly for words.
   
   Bookschlepper



4. Lousy little book--I picked it up at a bookstore on the road without looking closely. Not only is there scant factual basis for the book, it inserts quotes and 'thoughts' of the subjects that the author can't know. There are so many good accounts of the lives of the Windsors that this was a true waste of time, and an insult to royals and readers alike. Avoid.



5. I am a fairly casual reader of books about the British royalty, not a fanatic one, but I found little new in this book. Much of the information about Elizabeth's early years seems to come straight from The Little Princesses, while the later years have little to add not heavily covered in media. If you had never before read a book about Elizabeth, this might be a good starting place, as it's an easy read. It's quite a sympathetic portrait of her, but not of almost anyone else in her life, especially her husband Phillip, of whom there is barely a civil word said. The book does focus very much on her, and not her family, which is nice in a way, as there is so much out there about Diana and other family members. I would have liked to read more about her as a mother, but from what is said here and elsewhere, it wasn't one of her biggest roles. The photos included are a small and odd bunch, nothing comprehensive at all. I did perhaps feel I knew Elizabeth's personality a bit more after finishing this read, and it was not BADLY written, but I can't really say it's a necessary or outstanding book.

4 comments about The Uncrowned Emperor: The Life and Times of Otto von Habsburg.

1. This is a fine biography of a man who, but for a World War, might have been an Emperor and King. Otto von Hapsburg, born in 1912,was the son of the last Emperor of Austria-Hungary. His parents were overthrown in late 1918 and young Otto, whose own memories of his childhood are astonishingly vivid, began a life of exile.

   Otto had every right to be bitter over the hand fate dealt him, but we see very little of such an emotion in his life. Instead, we see a man whose dedication to Austria and Hungary (and later to all of Europe) never wavered. He stood by his homelands and was their most fervent advocate even in the dark days of World War II and the Cold War. He was ambitious yet honorable, as we see repeatedly when he refused to have anything to do with Hitler, for example.

   Otto's most important contributions came towards the end of his life, when he became one of the first members of the European Parliament. For twenty years he was a steadfast advocate of greater European unity, but within a setting in which tradition, custom, and above all established religion were not ignored. He was also a devoted family man, marrying rather late in life and fathering a large brood of children.

   So although Otto von Hapsburg did not achieve the status he was born to, he nevertheless made a positive contribution to the world, something his ancestors, many of whom held more power but had far less stature, would certainly be proud of.




2. Brook-Shepherd's latest Habsburg effort is all him, colorful phrases and all. A large portion of the book actually summarizes much of the happenings in his previous works, THE LAST EMPRESS and THE LAST HABSBURG, though he manages (no doubt somewhat through new interviews with Otto as well as material he may have held back) enough new anecdotes to keep that material fresh for returning readers. He does tend as in his other works to interpret the words and behaviors of Habsburg "enemies" in an extremely unflattering light, whether these were overt and obvious or not. The relatively smaller amount of space devoted to them here ends up sharpening the somewhat villainous characterizations. This once again betrays bias on behalf of the Habsburg family, that B-S himself finally admits to here, at least. I am speaking mainly of Admiral Horthy and Kurt Schuschnigg, who at crucial junctures in post WW I Hungarian and Austrian history, did not step aside in the face of de facto restoration attempts by Otto's father and himself, respectively. Objective histories of these interwar countries, as well as Kurt Schuschnigg's THE BRUTAL TAKEOVER and Horthy's MEMOIRS ("ERINNERUNGEN") would give the reader, at a minimum, a more balanced picture of the difficulties and (sometimes conflicting) motivations faced by these men.

   The last part of the book deals with Otto's Pan-Europeanism as well as the ups and downs of his family life and his children's personal and political fortunes. Combined with his efforts earlier, it makes an interesting and convincing case that Otto genuinely is and always was concerned with Europe's well-being in general, and that of his father's former subjects in particular, with recovering the Habsburg crowns a secondary concern.

   Brook-Shepherd continues the annoying habit of holding back more info on interesting tidbits that need expounding upon. Two examples from this book are Horthy's insistence on seeing Otto while on his deathbed after WW II, and a visit from Austro-Fascist strongman Prince Starhemberg while in exile to discuss restoration possibilities. One if not both of these incidents were tantalizingly mentioned in footnote in THE LAST EMPRESS, but just as briefly mentioned here. My suspicion continues that these are deliberately not more fully discussed because the details would conflict with other, more speculative parts of the text.

   These considerations aside, though--overall, UE is very enjoyable. For the Austrian history buff who craves information about the fallen dynasty after their thrones were lost, Brook-Shepherd remains the only game in town. Fortunately, he doesn't abuse the monopoly. As usual, he delivers a book that due to its style is a very breezy, informative, and sometimes emotional read.




3. In his introduction, Gordon Brook-Shepherd boasts that an Austrian critic once claimed that Brook-Shepherd "knew more about Austria and the Austrians than any living Englishman." After reading "Uncrowned Emperor," I find that claim to be *very* dubious. This book is absolutely riddled with factual errors, both concerning Austria and other European countries.
   
   Among the most glaring . . .
   p. 24: Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on June 28, 1914, not June 26, 1914. Although the difference is slight, this date is known to almost every schoolboy in Austria.
   p. 31: Empress Zita's brother Sixtus fought for the Belgians in World War I, not the French. This is significant because of Sixtus's efforts to mediate a peace settlement with Austria.
   p. 33: During the course of fighting in World War I, German troops had no "final retreat--back to the homeland." They withdrew in an orderly fashion after the armistice was signed. On November 11, 1918, German troops, though weakened, were still on French soil.
   p. 80: During the Weimar Republic, there was no such thing as a "Democratic Conservative Party." The Democratic Party was not conservative, and the conservative party (DNVP) was not democratic.
   
   Brook-Shepherd also has problems with first names.
   -- Thomas (or Tomas) Masaryk, not Jan Masaryk, was the founder and first president of Czechoslovakia. This error is notable both because it is repeated several times and because Thomas (or Tomas) Masaryk was largely responsible for the dissolution of the Habsburg Empire. Jan Masaryk was Czechoslovak foreign minister after 1945.
   -- The regent of the Kingdom of Hungary was Miklos Horthy, not Niklos Horthy.
   -- The former chancellor of Germany is Helmut Kohl, not Helmuth Kohl.
   
   The editors should have caught all of these errors.
   
   Another problem with this biography is that the writing is extremely uncritical. It is clear that Brook-Shepherd is much too close to his subject to be objective, and at times he veers into overt monarchism. Additionally, his constant asides and parenthetical comments are a distraction. This reviewer wishes for a more scholarly rigorous and objective study of Otto von Habsburg.



4. I found this book dry; yet overly sympathetic to its subject, without a historian's objectivity. Oddly, despite the author's admiration for Otto the statesman, we never learn much about Otto, the inner man. A balanced biography should have both sides of the story. I, too, noticed many of the errors cited by the other reviewer...While I could appreciate some of the information (particularly about Emperor Karl's attempt to regain the Hungarian throne), I didn't really enjoy the book, and it didn't make my keeper shelf.