No comments about Royal Rebel : A Psychological Portrait of Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria-Hungary.

5 comments about Queen Mary's Dolls' House.

1. England's Queen Mary--grandmother of the current Queen Elizabeth II--commissioned the construction of her extraordinary dollhouse (or "dolls' house" as it is referred to here) in 1921, during her own reign. It resides at Windsor Castle, as it has since being constructed there. Designed by Edward Lutyens (famous for his graceful furniture), the house is a reproduction of Windsor Castle right down to the last nail--almost literally.

   David Cripps' photography beautifully captures the interiors of this amazing dollhouse, from the grand to the plebian. Here is the linen closet, each batch of towels tied with different-colored ribbon to denote whether they were intended for the nursery, the staff, or the kitchen. Here is a lacquer cabinet with gilded stand, dovetailed working drawers, and gold-leafed decoration. Here is a bed, complete with pillows, bolsters, sheets, blankets, and even a tiny walnut-handled bedwarmer. The toilet, complete with toilet paper discreetly placed in a bowl alongside, really works. The toothbrushes are made of ivory and have bristles made from the hair of a goat's inner ear. In the cellar, bottles of Chateau Margaux are properly corked and waxed and labeled. The pantry shows real bows of Fry's Chocolates sharing space with McVitie & Price biscuits, barley sugar candies in hefty glass candy jars, and Frank Cooper's Seville Marmalade in squat jars tied with brown paper and string.

   The garage houses a miniature bicycle with brakes "in perfect working order," not to mention a Rudge motorcycle and sidecar, a seven-seater Rolls Royce limousine-landaulet, a Vauxhall, a "Sunbeam open tourer," and two Daimlers. Gorgeous royal crests are hand-painted on each. The house even has its own petrol pumps and fire appliances, as was normal for large houses in that era.

   The house's garden is splendid despite the absence of a single living thing. The lawn, made of cut green velvet, boasts several tiny mowers (both motor-powered and not), and the nearby garden has its own lovely benches, hoes, spades and the like. There is even a robin's nest, complete with eggs, and a tiny, tiny snail.

   Perhaps the most extraordinary thing in the house is the book collection. Famous authors were asked to contribute their own works. Arthur Conan Doyle obliged by submitted "How Watson Learned the Trick," an original 500-word short story done in his own handwriting. The bookplates for each of the books were designed by beloved Winnie-the-Pooh illustrator Ernest Shepard. Rudyard Kipling submitted not only two poems, but illustrated them himself as well. Other well-known authors who gave their own works to the Queen's house included G. K. Chesterton, Joseph Conrad, Robert Graves, Aldous Huxley, Hilaire Belloc, Rose Macauley, W. Somerset Maugham, and Vita Sackville-West. Topping off the fine works of this distinguished crowd are the leather-bound autograph books--one each for famous folks from stage and screen, famous folks from the military, and famous politicans.

   There is even a room for storing the scepter, crowns and other regalia--all featuring flawless gemstones!

   The details are endlessly fascinating and the house and its furnishings so well-constructed that without a tennis ball or coin or some other everyday real object, you easily forget that everything your eye falls upon here is miniature. For those who cannot get to Windsor Castle themselves to view the house in person, this book offers a very fine tour.




2. With a couple of corrections of the first review, I'd like to make sure that it's known that Queen Mary did not commission this dollshouse. It was the original brain child of the Princess Marie Louise, who spearheaded the creation of the house. Queen Mary was "extremely surprised" but agreed. The initial shell of the house was erected in Lutyen's office, then removed to the drawing room of his house in Mansfield Street in London.
   
   It was unveiled to the press, once completed, in the Mansfield Street house, then moved and reconstructed in the Palace of Arts at Wembley. It went from there to Windsor Castle, then to an exhibition at Olympia. In February of 1925, the house was returned to Windsor Castle. The Daily Mail donated a glass case through which we can now view the dollshouse in Windsor Castle.
   
   This wonderful book has photographs of the letters written by Princess Marie Louise to all the firms and manufacturers involved in the dollshouse creation, as well as numerous photographs of the interior and furnishings. Pictures of tiny dollshouse ledgers, keys, and even a garden snail grace this book.



3. To further correct the first reviewer, the Doll's House is certainly not a copy of Windsor Castle. It is nothing like it. Windsor Castle is a CASTLE - stones and very old, and big. The Doll's House is an "ideal home" of the early 1020's - albeit intended for royalty and not for your average Joneses.



4. I was so enchanted by Royal Collection Official Guide Book to Queen Mary's Dolls' House that I ordered this one figuring (correctly) that there would be other unique pictures. This is the better of the two books - nearly three times as long and filled with more pictures, especially detail shots of the tiny furnishings and decorations. I am charmed by Cripp's method of showing scale: he poses the tiny cricket bat next to a regulation cricket ball, and the little golf clubs next to a real golf ball. This also includes a section on how the house is aging: fading wallpaper, damaged paint, etc. All of the pictures, except for a few that are historic, are in color. This is unfortunately out of print, and may be more expensive, so the purchaser will have to weigh issues of cost and availability for themselves. I think that either would do as a souvenier.
   
   If someone is really interested, I would recommend getting both books. The Royal Collection Official Guidebook is a pretty good buy at $11.95 and a nice supplement to this one. A very few of the shots are in both, but not enough to make them redundant to the person who wants all the information they can get. Generally, the duplicate shots are slightly large in the S-W book. To compare and contrast the two, while the S-W book has more of everything, the RC book still has some unique shots. The photographs in this book take in the entire room, while the RC book often shoots the room at an angle, cutting off part of the room, but what is shown is sometimes in better focus and a bit larger. To compare the shots of the Queen's bedroom, the Stewart-Wilson shot shows the entire bedroom. The Royal Collection shot, at an angle , reveals some additional details such as the fire screen and the chinoiserie cabinet, but cuts off the exteme left-hand side of the room. (Her Majesty has apparently been rearranging her decorative items since the S-W book.) The S-W detail of the 18th century pietre-dure table concentrates on showing the design on the top. The RC detail shows more of the table and the objects normally on it. The historical sections, revealing how the house came to be built are the most different, and the RC book has more pictures of people who participated in creating the doll house and of the room in which it now sits with the Phillip Connard mural. The captions are overlapping, but not identical, and so one gains more information by having both.



5. Lutyens, the architect of Queen Mary's Dolls' House, also designed the city of New Delhi and the Viceroy's House, one of the largest and most unique palaces in the world. Sadly, he was one of the world's greatest artists, but is remembered only for this (comparatively) tiny tourist attraction.
   
   Tourists, architectural students, and historians should buy this book. This is the only thorough analysis of any of Lutyens' buildings, and as such, is an important historical document above and beyond its tourist appeal.

5 comments about Prince of Pleasure: The Prince of Wales and the Making of the Regency.

1. I am ambivalent at best about Saul David's book "Prince of Pleasure".

   On the good side I think he is very readable and I did enjoy a great deal of this book. Unfortunately I don't think he brought up much to shed new light on the Prince and indeed some of the matters on which he emphasised he failed to distinguish between rumour and innuendo, and what was actual provable fact - the supposed love children of the Prince Regent's sisters for instance. Other people have presented far better researched and more compelling arguments on these things than he did.

   The book left wondering what there was really new in this that Christopher Hibbert has not discussed in his 2 volume biography of the Prince Regent Published some 25 years ago? If there was anything new about the Prince I think it was mostly window decoration.

   Also I was somewhat disturbed by a number of errors of fact in the book - none of which really destroyed or influenced the subject of the book as they were on peripheral issues - but nevertheless annoying - for instance he said the Earl of Barrymore (better known as Hellgate) had been shot by the soldiers in his regiment - untrue. He died in an accidental shooting when his sporting gun went off in his carriage. David implies that Harriette Wilson made a fortune from her memoirs - also not true.

   I also found it hard to agree with some of the interpretations he put on various quotes from people - to prove that the Prince had had an affair with Harriette Wilson for instance - or his assertion from a very ambiguous quote that Beau Brummell was Gay.

   David does have a very neat way of blending in the elements of history with the life of the Prince Regent which I also found very enjoyable. I wish he would footnote a bit more so it was possible to see where he drew his information from.

   One final quibble I have with this book is that "Prince of Pleasure" is a title that is already used by J B Priestley's 1969 work on the Prince Regent and the Regency period. This was a popular book and well known. I wondered if David had read it, but it doesn't turn up in his bibliography - a fact I find surprising for he must have come across it in his research. It just seems a bit cheeky to use the same title in a book on exactly the same subject and not acknowledge it.

   In the end I am left wondering what he has added that was not already known about the Prince Regent. Still it is interesting and readable.




2. George IV or the Prince Regent is the caricature monarch of English history. In the age of the scything cartoonist, the larger than life Prince was the ideal subject through his loves, sense of melodrama and overblown antics. David, wisely in my opinion confines himself to the period before his ascendancy to the throne, after which George, by virtue of his gout and his unpopularity became a subdued, sorry figure. David whisks us through all the major episodes, Mrs. Fitzherbert, his doomed marriage, the infidelity of both spouses and his eternal opulence and theatrics. There is such a wealth of literature both on the Prince and the Regency, that a new approach or a fresh insight is virtually impossible, particularly from a biographical standpoint. Hence the best an author can do under the circumstances is provide a rollicking read and a fun, lively approach and David measures up to the task. This is a thoroughly enjoyable book about a perenially endearing cartoonlike figure. No revisionist breakthroughs here, but a lot of fun.



3. He started off pretty, but it was only skin deep. He was vain and greedy. He was particularly irksome to both wives (secret and catholic Mrs Fitzherbert, "respectable" but dizzy Princess Caroline). But no-one is all bad - he loved his daughter, enjoyed parties and built a few memorable buildings. What a waste of a life. Despite the horrible cover, this is a solid book on the Prince Regent which will be read (or glanced at) by regency buffs the world over.



4. This is a good book about a bad man. While George IV is believed to have been a style setter and taste-maker, his life was so motivated by self-indulgance and egotism that even a biographer as talented as Mr. David cannot hope but to fail in his hopeless attempt to make the subject of this books attractive.
   George IV was the son of America's last king, George III. In his life there were hosts of empty headed women of easy virtue, massive tasteless building projects, flitations with radical politics, and more excess than the average Hollywood star of the moment. By his example, George IV makes Jim Morrison look like a choir boy. And what a bore he must of been as well!
   Mr. David attempts to make the prince likable, but one is compelled upon a dispassionate read of the facts to conclude with Thackery that he was little more than a cad with a crown. This is the opposite conclusion to which Mr. David attempts, and hats off to him for his efforts on behalf of this poor dead king's reputation. It is kind of difficult to feel any sympathy for a man who treated his wife so poorly, drank himself to excess, spent money fecklessly and in the end believed himself (rather pathetically) the victor of the battle of Waterloo.



5. I'm past halfway and feel I know enough of the book to judge. The title, subtitle and back copy are misleading. This book offers far more political history than cultural history and the focus on the Prince himself wavers so often I found myself wanting to sit Saul David or his editor down and deliver a stern talking-to. Prince of Pleasure? Prince of Politics is more like it, with one endless shuffle of the cabinet after another. As if that weren't enough, the writing is flat, though at times David gets slangy or jokey as if aware of his prosaic style. And as a historian, he;s inconsistent: we get endless gross detail about how unclean and unhygienic Princess Caroline was, yet she goes on to have many lovers--did no one else besides her husband and some courtiers early on ever comment? Or did she have a soap-related epiphany? Inquiring minds want to know.

No comments about Collins Gem Royal Britain: Fascinating Insight Into British Royal Life (Collins Gem).

No comments about Victoria and Disraeli: The Making of a Romantic Partnership.

5 comments about Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen (England's Forgotten Queens).

1. Is anyone else tired of hardline feminists writing revisionist histories of every female personage whose reputation may have been exagerated by contempory chroniclers?
   
   As contempory chroniclers are the only primary information sources, even assuming that they were all misogynistic and that they unjustly slandered every "liberated" woman, there are no better sources to prove otherwise. Portraying Elizabeth Wydeville as unculpable and virtuous is adding modern prejudice to her personage even more than her contemporaries possible misogyny.
   
   Frankly, this type of revisionist history is insulting as a scholar and as a female, and I was highly disappointed to see Alison Wier's name associated with this farce.



2. I have to agree with another review that it was interesting to read a different interpretation of Elizabeth Wydeville. Some of the arguments fell short, but I still thought it was well done. I'm also not sure we are at a point to be spurning historical reinterpretation just yet.
   I enjoyed it and recommend that readers also read Baldwin's biography of Elizabeth



3. What a studied and fascinating work this book is! We've heard many versions of the presumed accounts of the 2 missing princes who disappeared from London Tower...but what of their mother, the first Queen Elizabeth? Although we've heard much smattering of slander about her in the past, now we have a new story to consider in this lavishly researched, footnoted and indexed work reviewing the Queen's life. Although you will feel the good weight of research that the author poured into the book, you will be able to read the Queen's fascinating story without needing to be a Rhodes Scholar to delve into it.
   
   We even get to sigh a romantic sigh as we imagine the meeting of (24 year old) Elizabeth when she met with the King (age 19) at the time he likely fell madly in love with her: "At Grafton, Elizabeth was on home territory. The Wydeville manor lay within a mile of Whittlewood Forest where the King was hunting. Having grown up here, Elizabeth knew the course that the hunters would take, the fields where the deer would be chased for the kill, the grassy spots ideal for picnics. Choosing a large oak tree, she stationed herself and her two small sons beneath it and waited. Hard in pursuit of prey, Edward saw the beautiful young mother with her children, pulled his horse up short, and marveled at the bucolic tableau." See what I mean? We really get a feel for the romance, the hardship, and the tragedy to follow.
   
   The ancestor of Mary, Queen of Scots and of Lady Jane Grey, this slandered queen's grandson will be Henry VIII, her great-grandaughter will be Queen Elizabeth I. In her time, she will become a widowed mother of two children but then secretly marry the King of England (the younger Edward IV), thus being crowned Queen of England in 1465, her father will be beheaded, her husband the King will become exiled leaving her alone while pregnant with many young children in tow, she will give birth to the future King of England (Edward V), her brother will be executed, her son (Sir Richard Grey) will be murdered upon order of Richard III, her two sons (King Edward V and Prince Richard of York) will disappear from the Tower of London with tragically uncertain fate, her 19-year-long marriage will be declared adulterous and their 10 children will be declared illegitimate, and she will be accused of witchcraft and sorcery.
   
   An amazing life, worth of the re-defining richly presented by this author.



4. I thought this book had a great deal of conjecture in it. Regarding keeping this reader's interest, the book didn't come close to most of the historical books I've been reading lately, mostly by Alison Weir and Antonia Frasier. Additionally, the print was not dark enough for easy readability, and the print was rather small. Not easy on the eyes at all.



5. An excellent history of Elizabeth Wydville. Sometimes a few too many details. Shows the love between Elizabeth and Henry. A great sadness at the end of the book showing how badly a queen can be treated after the king dies.

2 comments about Sultana (Spanish Edition).

1. Jamás pensé que un ligro como éste puedise despertar tanto odio hacia los hombres y sus leyes ridículas en las que la mujer es menos que un animal cuando es ésta mujer la que te trae al mundo con dolor y angustias. Se necesitan en el mundo más mujeres como Sultana yo por mi parte he adoptado un segundo nombre adivina cual



2. Definitivamente, la autora logra su propósito: transportarnos a la vida, costumbres y cultura de Arabia, al mismo tiempo que capta totalmente la atención de los lectores a través de una narración descriptiva lograda con excelencia. Recomiendo esta lectura a todo el mundo, pues además de envolvernos en una lectura altamente interesante, logramos penetrar a un mundo casi desconocido por todos nosotros. Además, a través de estos escritos, podemos valorar más aún la libertad de la cual gozamos, sobre todo en los Estados Unidos, y la importancia tan grande que tiene el que nuestro sistema jurídico reconozca y proteja nuestros derechos civiles a todos por igual. Maribel Sánchez, Puerto Rico.

1 comments about Richard III & Buckingham's Rebellion.

1. A detailed account of the circumstances leading to Buckingham's rebellion, and the connection between the revolt and the ultimate fate of Richard III at Bosworth Field. The focus is on the gentry of the south of England who were loyal to Edward IV and eventually became the instigators of the rebellion. This book may be heavy going for the casual reader since it presumes basic familiarity with the events of the period. A good complement is Paul Murray Kendall's biography of Richard III, which describes how Richard gained support from the nobility and gentry of the north of England. The book includes lots of photographs and helpful maps. All in all, a good read.

5 comments about Documents of Lady Jane Grey: Nine Days Queen of England 1553.

1. If the book is used as the author indicates it's only purpose is to be, which is for reference, then Mr. Taylor has done a great job of bringing all the literary remains of Lady Jane Grey together in one edition for others to use. Though I do not believe that the "Lane Letters" should have been included, I will commend Mr. Taylor on not following the format that some recent authors have chosen of embellishing a few facts and sensationalizing them to appeal to the masses. I have used this book in my classes and the book is a time saver for my students who often research Tudor history.



2. Mr Taylor has clearly spent a great deal of time and effort in producing this volume. Unfortunately the result is useless for anything other than entertainment. It cannot in any way be called legitimate "history." The book is replete with flaws, errors and omissions. Mr Taylor relies very heavily on a late-eigtheenth century collection of "letters" published by William Lane through Minerva Press. The collection is tellingly entitled "Lady Jane Grey: An Histoircal TALE"..."tale" being the operative word. Mr Taylor notes that the Lane collection had been "lost" to historians for over 200 years until he "re-discovered" it. There is a good reason why the "letters" were "lost": any trained historian would immediately recognize them as complete fiction. The "letter" from Henry Grey to "Lord Protector" Northumberland, for example, reveals the fiction (p. 18-20, Lane Letter 86). Northumberland was never titled "Lord Protector," and Henry Grey would never have addressed him as such. Any trained historian familiar with the Tudor era would have known this. But Mr Taylor is apparently not a trained historian. This is evident from his bibliography. He has "primary" and "secondary" sources utterly confused. Further, he cites works such as Jane's prayerbook by using a secondary source (a later Harley Manuscript). The original prayerbook is Harley MS 2342, and has been microfilmed. That microfilm is available in many US libraries. Why not look at a microfilm of the original rather than a printed transcription of a later manuscript that simply describes the original? A serious error. And finally, in his bibliography he lists a work as having been written by Guglielmo Facciotti. In actuality, Facciotti was a PRINTER, not an author. He was active in Rome ca. 1592-1637. The AUTHOR of the work cited is actually Giovannni Raviglio-Rosso. Read this book for what it is: a compilation of factual AND FICTIONAL documents that take Jane Grey as their subject. But for legitimate ("real") history, look elsewhere. This book is a perfect example of why amateur historians and sloppy publishers should never be brought together. The result is a complete mess, and leaves readers completely misinformed and confused...and legitimate history teachers scrambling to pick up the pieces.



3. I will admit that I was skeptical about this book after reading the contrasting feedback left by other readers but after completing the book I feel that Mr. Taylor should be commended for several reasons. First and perhaps that most important to a retired professor of European history as myself is that Mr. Taylor did not follow the same format as many "historians" do by using colorful embellishments to retell a few known facts. The second being that Mr. Taylor also refrained from criticizing other author's lack of information or misuse of. It is clear that Mr. Taylor only recites the sources that he felt were the most accurate. I have learned in 30 years of teaching college level classes that if you present 10 people with 10 primary and secondary sources that you will have 14 different opinions about them. I feel that Taylor's use of the Lane Letters is questionable and after contacting the author, he explained that the publisher omitted a sentence in the introduction indicating the use and source of letters. Nevertheless, the Lane Letters should have been placed in a separate chapter away from the main body of the book, but when they are read as the author intended, they are entertaining. Ill regardless of the rather harsh criticism left by another reader, I would have used the book in my classes if I were still teaching. Publishing Weekly left an accurate feedback and I do feel that there is a fresh approach here that does belong in a library. From what I can see, Mr. Taylor is the first to present all known information about this young lady. I look forward to a revision



4. I have read much more reader friendly books that incorporate primary source documents. The book was dull and did not provide any new insights or information about an interesting character in the Tudor era.



5. When I first purchased this book I thought I was getting something legitimate, but after going through it I found myself asking over and over, "Is this for real?" The answer is no. I don't know if Jane Grey ever had a cousin named Anne, but if she did they wouldn't have written to each other in flowery 18th century sentences such as "Fly to your Anne" or "Adieu, hasten to your Jane Grey". All of Jane's letters are written in 16th century English and most of them are religious in tone and theme. The only people she would have flown to would have been her governess Mrs. Ellen and her teacher John Aylmer, to escape her abusive parents. Jane supposedly being distracted from her studies by falling for dashing young Guilford Dudley is ludicrous. Nothing could keep her from her daily lessons except marriage to Guilford, which her parents had to beat her into accepting. She disliked him for being spoiled and demanding while he very likely thought her a prudish little bookworm. My advice is to skip this book and go with Hester W. Chapman's "Lady Jane Grey", Alison Plowden's "Lady Jane Grey and the House of Suffolk", or even Alison Weir's novel "Innocent Traitor".

1 comments about History Of Margaret Of Anjou, Queen Of Henry Vi Of England.

1. Like Agnes Strickland's Queens of England, Abbott's history is outdated given all the new information and research that has been done since the original date of publication. For instance, there is now irrefutable evidence that Margaret was in Anjou from the years 1434-1442 with her grandmother, Yolande of Aragon. There are many other instances of this throughout the book.
   Secondly, Abbott spends a lot of time trying to give background on the times and places that Margaret lives that, while entertaining, have nothing to do with her and for a rather slim volume, take away from the account of her life. The chapter on Lady Neville comes to mind, especially as the chronology of it is not clear and he admits before he begins that is most likey fiction (it is).
   However, for anyone who loves the wars of the roses and Margaret of Anjou, this is a lovely addition and it's interesting to read history as it was written in the 19th century.