5 comments about Arbella: England's Lost Queen.

1. I have had this book for over six weeks, and am only halfway through. It's good, but not engrossing. I haven't had the inclination to continue reading, even though not finishing a book is something I'm fundamentally unable to do, for the most part. It's not that the story isn't interesting; it's just that it's very dry and takes a long time to get to the heart of the story.



2. I found the book quite interesting, especially since it seemed like Arbella was similar to her Aunt Mary Stuart Queen of Scots in some of her actions. Was there much influence on the young girl before the execution of her aunt? There does not seem to be much to confirm this. But then there is the question of the porphyria. Since Mary & Arbella were not blood relatives could the disease cause similarites in response to stressful situations? This book has certainly sparked an interest in myself to investigate such matters. I would certainly recommend this book for those curious in historical biographies.



3. I read Arbella, England's Lost Queen by Sarah Gristwood becuase the subject matter interested me. Who was this woman perpetually kept as a prisoner by her relatives for most of her short life? Was she that much of a threat to the throne of King James I?
   Sarah Gristwood provides lots of pertinent information about Arbella and her relations and sets the stage describing the royal personages and scandals of the day. Yet this biography is uneven at best. At times, it does not flow smoothly and the author consistently interjects her 21st century voice that often gets in the way of the story. Many of the author's comments either needed to be edited or written in a way that flowed in sync with the story and the setting. Here is an example from the book," Arbella may have been at once ill and actively scheming;just because they are after you doesn't mean you aren't paranoid" p.340. Is this last line necessary? Here is another line,"We know she was subject to depression, the "dumps". Is this a direct quote from a seventeenth century source? Somehow, using contemporary phrases and trite aphorisms does not work for a 16th/17th century royal biography. I also noticed there were some typos, unusual for a reputed publisher such as Houghton Mifflin, once again indicating this book needed a more careful editing job.
   The author has clearly done her research and does give the reader many sources that give us clues as to who Arbella was, what her motivations were and how she attempted to live her life. However, due to a dearth perhaps of information on Arbella, one still feels something is missing here. I felt as if I really got to know the other characters in the history, such as Arbella's scheming aunt, Mary Talbot and her maternal grandmother, Bess of Hartwick.
   Overall, the subject matter was more interesting than the presentation of the material. I think an editing job omitting the author's several cliched phrases that disrupted the flow of the story would have helped. She does pose some intriguing questions and theories and I learned alot about the time period. The Epilogue was certainly complete and well written.
   Sarah Gristwood definitely did her research on Arbella. Her theories are thought provoking. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the interjection of her own voice disrupted the flow of the book, created unnecessary distractions and some of the worn out phrases could have been edited out.
   
   
   



4. Although Sara Gristwood researched her book carefully and wrote as much of Arbella Stuart's life as feasible given the paucity of material, this bio just failed to spark a genuine interest. The reason is simple; Arbella never felt like a real person - there is a continual opacity to her, not so much because she was a "prisoner" or because her life was lived out many centuries ago, but because she just wasn't a very interesting or likeable character.
   
   In fact, she was a privileged noble in a world of nearly universal want and she not only expected more but complained relentlessly about what she didn't have. Her rambling letters and odd behavior indicate a profoundly disordered mind and she, as is so prevalent even among today's celebrities, seems unnaturally self-obsessed, narcissistic even.
   
   Gristwood believes Arbella's outbursts and uncontrollable behaviour was a result either of hugely frustrated ambition/identity or from porphyria, and thus she never really comes down hard on the girl. Frankly, oppressed and frustrated or ill she may have been, but Arbella Stuart appears more histrionic and just plain obnoxious than pitiful.
   
   Gristwood would have done her readers a service if she'd spent more time discussing the porphyria theory, specifically the medical definition and a thorough symptom catalogue. We all know George III suffered terribly from it, but the lack of medical information meant that this reader had to set aside the book and go on-line to research it. Really, Sarah, that should have been your job.
   
   Maybe she didn't include the medical information because it doesn't provide much causality. Also, the possibility that her "aunt" Queen Mary Stuart had it intermittently is irrelevant because Mary was an aunt by marriage only, not blood (Arbella's father and Darnley were brothers).
   
   Ill or not, unhappy with her life or not, Arbella Stuart is not the best subject for the time-traveling reader. There wasn't much to her and what there is, Gristwood treats a little too sympathetically. This is one "lost queen" who would no doubt have been a disaster for England if she had been found.



5. The book was very good. I recommend it to anyone that enjoys history. I couldn't put it down.

5 comments about Diana, An Amazing Life: The People Cover Stories, 1981-1997.

1. THIS WAS AN EXCELLANT BOOK WITH BEAUTIFUL PICTURES AND ARTICLES AND IT LEFT YOU FEELING LIKE YOU KNEW THE PRINCESS FROM THE BEGINNING OF HER LIFE TO THE END. AN EXCELLENT TRIBUTE TO HER LIFE.



2. I really enjoyed this re-visit to the People covers! It was a great way to look back!



3. Hi, I bought my People Magazine Tribute to Diana at local B&N Bookstore and i am so happy that I did!!! I love the history of Diana,s life from the begining as alittle girl, meeting Charlas, the engaement, the births of William and HARRY,diana,s sister in-law Sarah, her marriage troubles and diana rising up a Pheonix the fire bird.I am so glad Dodi made Diana so happy. I love all the colour photos!!! BIG CHEERS TO PEOPLE MAGAZINE!!!!



4. Kind of a start to finish collection of selected People Diana covers/articles. It's nice to look through and read (would make a nice keepsake for the Diana fan)- especially if you missed some issues like I certainly did- but not really worth buying if you still have the original copies in good condition. I don't regret buying it but had hoped for just a bit more than a buyer gets here. There was a paperback edition out at first, haven't seen it recently, only slightly cheaper but this version would be the one to get for durability.



5. This is the book to own. I enjoyed every bit of it and would recommend it to everyone.

5 comments about Princesses: The Six Daughters of George III.

1. After THE UNRULY QUEEN I was already an admirer of this author but now I am in awe of her. Knowing the mountain of original sources Fraser used I find her selections, editing and writing of the overall narrative simply wonderful. It is a very complicated landscape The Princesses lived in and yet the author has succeeded in not only turning up the volume on each Princess as an individual, but portrays the dynamics of that huge family within one of the most turbulent periods of modern history. Also, explanations of the manners and mores of the times are seamlessly interwoven, which in turn nicely contrasts public propriety with the daily private reality. I have a large George III library and this is a valuable addition to it.



2. I have seen occasional references to the children of George III, apart from George IV and William IV, usually in biographies of Queen Victoria, but this is the first in-depth treatment that I have read of his daughters. They usually don't even rank a mention in the oft-told tale of the race to provide an heir to the throne after the death of Princess Charlotte (George IV's daughter) since, due to the rules of primogeniture and their father's reluctance to allow them to marry before middle age, they didn't even have a shot at it.
   
   Continuing in the family tradition of writing absorbing biographies of figures in English history, Flora Fraser provides a sympathetic, if sometimes a bit too minutely detailed, picture of these six very different sisters: Charlotte, Princess Royal (known as Royal), always conscious of her rank and position, as she could hardly fail to be with such a nickname; Augusta, the family correspondent; Elizabeth, artistic and charitable; Mary, the beauty of the family, who survived all her siblings and lived well into Victoria's reign; Sophia, who "disgraced" herself by bearing an illegitimate son; and Amelia, the headstrong youngest child who was passionately in love with a man whom she could not marry. These are only thumbnail descriptions and do not do justice to Fraser's portrayal of the loving and occasionally acrimonious relationship that the princesses had with each other, their brothers, and their parents.
   
   We often read about the political repercussions of George III's mental disability and the deterioration of the relationship between the Regent and his parents, but I found Fraser's description of the effect that it had on the Queen and their daughters to be particularly moving. However, three of them did find happiness in marriage, if not children, late in life, and with the others, were able to build satisfying lives around nieces and nephews, as well as artistic, intellectual and charitable pursuits. We can only speculate on what they might have done with their lives had more opportunities been open to them.



3. In my opinion this is one of those books that it is well researched,well organized and the story is pretty much well told.But at the end of the day i asked myself why i bought this book, because when i finished reading the book i realized that the lives of these ladies wasnt interesting at all.I mean the thing is that, basically, nothing happened to this ladies.They were completely separated from the outside world and they really didnt had that much to contribute or much to get involved with the world.The narrative is not bad because the author makes a great effort in trying to make the story interesting.The problem is that the story is boring and dull.The author also just takes too many pages to tell a story that doesnt need that many pages.I've could have done without a least 100 to a 150 pages.The only parts that were interesting were the ones that talked about the English etiquette in Court.I got to learn a lot about what's the etiquette when someone died and the proper order in which to enter a room or signed a document.Again good effort by the author but there's no story to tell



4. This was a very detailed and indept biography of the six daughters of George III. Charlotte, Augusta, Elizabeth, Mary, Sophia, and Amelia they were not allowed to marry an unusual step at the time since most kings marry off their daughters for alliences George III decided not to marry his daughters off after witnessing one of his own sister's plight in marriage. Yet that didn't deter them from flirting, illegally marrying or in Sophia's case even giving birth to an illigmate child creating scandles of their own. It was interesting reading about their interests and charities and living with their parents through middle age. Two sisters did end up marrying after well into middle age. A very good bio.



5. The six daughters of King George III have been overlooked by biographers for too many years. Therefore I had high hopes for Princesses. Unfortunately it was one of the most difficult biographies I have ever read. Flora Fraser painstakingly read and researched hundreds of existing letters written by the princesses as well as others involved in their lives, and it seems she made use of each and every one of them - to the point of annoyance. To borrow a line from Shakespeare, Fraser needs to be told "More matter with less art". The writing is dense, arty, and agonisingly slow to read, and too many pages are spent rehashing insignificant details. These pages would have gone to better use going into more depth about the personalities, characters, and personal relationships of the women. For all that, the subject of the princesses' lives is piquant, moving, joyful, and tragic. But is it worth such headache and laborious reading?

5 comments about Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens.

1. First, I would like to review the book itself, and then address some of its critics.
   
   Two of history's most famous queens, one for her unexpected and remarkable greatness, the other for her inexplicably poor judgment and bad luck. But was their famous rivalry inevitable? Was Elizabeth always the popular, talented, dominant one while Mary remained in her shadow? Jane Dunn asks these questions, and I was surprised - and pleased - by some of her answers.
   
   The first part of the book is essentially a point-by-point comparison of the two queens, detailing their very different youths and explaining how they would influence the women in later years. Essentially, Mary had a huge sense of entitlement, was overconfident in her own power and security, and was a much more 'traditional' woman - and Queen - of her day. Elizabeth, whose childhood was punctuated by dramatic changes of fortune, had a much more acute sense of how tenuous her position was, and how much she depended on the good will of her people to maintain power.
   
   Dunn does beat the Mary-as-charming-but-spoiled and Bess-as-brilliant-control-freak comparison into us a bit, but it is a good way of looking at the very different natures of these two women. Her book isn't a full biography of either queen; rather it's a look at the intersection between them - their relationship with each other, their competition, rivalry, and common causes. As such it's a fascinating look at a unique time in European history, the so-called "Age of Queens".
   Posterity-wise, Mary got the short end of the stick. History will always remember her as Elizabeth's paler shadow, a major annoyance and minor queen who had no one but herself to blame for her tragic end. Although Dunn does occasionally (perhaps unavoidably) slip into Mary-bashing and Bess-worship, on the whole she does a good job pointing out that that wasn't always the case - and, had a few things gone differently, we would paint a very different portrait of the two cousins. Her Mary and Elizabeth are fully human - flaws, quirks, charms, and all. It's the best way to explain the convoluted relationship between the two, and it provides a lot of useful character insight into all other aspects of these Queens as well. (I do wish Dunn had gone further into the possibility that Mary was bipolar. It's a fascinating hypothesis, and it would explain a lot.)
   
   Mary's end - which also serves as the book's - is too rushed; twenty years are covered in a handful of pages and the account of the execution itself offers nothing new. But until that point, I thoroughly enjoyed this provocative and inspiring portrait of two very different women whom circumstances thrust into such fierce competition.
   
   Now: Some reviewers seem to feel that Dunn was somehow "unfair" to Mary and that her comparison of the two queens is misogynist. I admit to being completely baffled by this point of view. It appears to stem from the argument that somehow Mary was a better "feminist" queen than Elizabeth, I suppose because Elizabeth "betrayed the sisterhood" by having Mary executed.
   
   Further, Dunn's critics seem to argue that Mary was a better "feminine" role model than Elizabeth was, apparently because she ruled through emotion rather than reason. They complain that Elizabeth is too "cold" and "calculating" to be a good example of a female ruler, while waxing rhapsodic about Mary's "mercy" and "gentleness". Let me be blunt: this is the sort of idiotic, feel-good, p.c. claptrap that has set the cause of working women back 50 years. Yes, there is something to be said for women's differing management styles; you will get no argument from me that in today's world, women should not have to emulate uber-masculinity to succeed. But - newsflash! - this was the 16th century. Not only were the roles of men and women completely different - and thus incomparable - than they are today, have you ever actually tried to get anything done with the kind of dithering, vapid leadership exemplified by Mary and her ilk?
   
   Attempting to repaint Dunn's dual biography as some sort of feminist management manifesto does a disservice, both to the author and her subjects. We should admire both Elizabeth and Mary for who they were and what they did, while admitting their flaws and shortcomings. But this is not the 1500s, and trying to appropriate their story to make a point about women today is grossly misrepresentative, self-centered, and intellectually careless. If you want to adopt antiquated delusions about women in the workplace, try reading Forbes online - not "Elizabeth and Mary".



2. Jane Dunn, Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens - I would not advise any avid Mary Stewart admirers (or feminists) to purchase this book. Jane Dunn in my mind (and from the extensive text I have read) does Mary Stewart a great injustice with her blatant Elizabethan bias. She over looks the obvious motives of Queen Elizabeth for Mary's murder, instead painting Elizabeth as a strong woman in a man's world who had no option but conspire against, imprison and eventually have her cousin put to death.
   
   I was looking forward to an in-depth read, a psychological & sociological perspective of these two female power brokers... but instead found the book to view Mary in a very sexist fashion (surprising, as the author is female!). Jane Dunn's `Mary bashing' stems around her intolerance of Mary expressing and ruling with her female traits intact... Mary rules from the heart and is often merciful, and led by her intelligence and her emotions.
   
   In contrast to this, Elizabeth kills off the feminine aspects of herself, and rules with a cold, calculating and ruthless vision. She is the archetype that we 21st century women still struggle against...we do not want to have to behave like men to function at a effective level in this world, we want to be respected for our feminine qualities of caring, understanding and tolerance; something this world sadly lacks. Mary had these qualities and used them to great effect (i.e. allowing the blend of the two dominant religions in her land to co-exist). Mary had her faults as we all do but she accepted others and there faults and tried to negotiate for compromise and tolerance.
   
   Mary could have made a real difference in her time if it were for two factors.
   
   1. If she had the chance to grow and learn free of imprisonment.
   2. If she had had the support of her so called `sister' Elizabeth!!! Something that Elizabeth would never give...in fact Elizabeth was wriggled with the most terrible of negative female expression `Jealousy'... because she had suppressed her femininity, she became a twisted version of a woman, one who could not allow a real female Queen to share the same island...so much so she murdered her!
   Mary was wronged enough in her lifetime and Jane Dunn should be ashamed that she finds it necessary to slander her character and trivialize her even in death.



3. For anyone looking for a straight forward biography of these two fascinating queens, Jane Dunn's excellent book is not for you. This is an in-depth, sociological, and psychological study of the two rival queens and the events that shaped their lives. Critical reviewers have accused Dunn of unfair bias toward Elizabeth, but, given the extraordinary achievements of Elizabeth, how can one not be? Mary Stewart was a very romantic, tragic, almost mythical figure, but she played the traditional female role of a queen who needed a king to rule with her; surprising considering she was the daughter of the formidable Marie de Guise. And her appalling choices of husbands #2 and #3 caused her life to spin out of control. Her poor decisions regarding the treason plot against Elizabeth displayed emotion over reason, and ultimately brought about her downfall. Elizabeth, on the other hand, was magnificent. In an era when women were commonly accepted as inferior to men, she not only overcame huge sociological prejudices to become the most powerful ruler of her era, but ultimately did it well, bringing Elizabethan England to great prosperity. The contrast between the two women, Elizabeth, struggling to be equal to a king in a totally male dominated world and Mary, relying on her femininity to achieve her desires, could not be more marked. The issue of succession, with Elizabeth's choice to remain a "Virgin Queen," (in name only, I have to say, I disagree with Dunn's viewpoint that she and Dudley were "just friends") in order to maintain her control, and thus leaving England without an heir, is complex and warranted more discussion in the book. But really, after all the historical sturm und drang does anyone else see the great irony that Mary's son James became king of the British Isles anyway, ascending to both the English and Scottish throne?



4. For anyone looking for a straight forward biography of these two fascinating queens, Jane Dunn's excellent book is not for you. This is an in-depth, sociological, and psychological study of the two rival queens and the events that shaped their lives. Critical reviewers have accused Dunn of unfair bias toward Elizabeth, but, given the extraordinary achievements of Elizabeth, how can one not be? Mary Stewart was a very romantic, tragic, almost mythical figure, but she played the traditional female role of a queen who needed a king to rule with her; surprising considering she was the daughter of the formidable Marie de Guise. And her appalling choices of husbands #2 and #3 caused her life to spin out of control. Her poor decisions regarding the treason plot against Elizabeth displayed emotion over reason, and ultimately brought about her downfall. Elizabeth, on the other hand, was magnificent. In an era when women were commonly accepted as inferior to men, she not only overcame huge sociological prejudices to become the most powerful ruler of her era, but ultimately did it well, bringing Elizabethan England to great prosperity. The contrast between the two women, Elizabeth, struggling to be equal to a king in a totally male dominated world and Mary, relying on her femininity to achieve her desires, could not be more marked. The issue of succession, with Elizabeth's choice to remain a "Virgin Queen," (in name only, I have to say, I disagree with Dunn's viewpoint that she and Dudley were "just friends") in order to maintain her control, and thus leaving England without an heir, is complex and warranted more discussion in the book. But really, after all the historical sturm und drang does anyone else see the great irony that Mary's son James became king of the British Isles anyway, ascending to both the English and Scottish throne?



5. I received prompt and reliable service.... my book arrived so quickly and in perfect condition! I'm grateful!

5 comments about Diana: Princess of Wales.

1. Although you can buy plenty of other books with photos of Diana, Testino photographed her like no one else. She looks casual, relaxed and happy in these photos. Diana does not look at all "glammed" up with excessive makeup and hair styling. The way you would see her at home, inspite of the gowns she wears in these photos. Testino captured a Diana that was probably only seen by family and friends, and in these shots he shared that Diana with the rest of the world.



2. AWFUL! Only a few photos, repeated several times, most were out of focus. Would never have purchased if I could have looked inside. I guess that's why it was wrapped in plastic in a local bookstore.



3. Stunning pictures, just a beautiful piece of art that will leave you speechless. Princess Diana was beautiful inside and out, there's nothing left to say.



4. Five months before Princess Diana's death in August, 1997 she sat for what was to be her last photo session with the Peruvian photographer Mario Testino. The results for the most part are quite wonderful. Often shot in natural light, sometimes smiling naturally-- a difficult task for any photographer to capture-- Diana, relaxed and unadorned (she wears no jewelry and is barefoot and seated sometimes on an all-white sofa), seems to be having a very good time and could almost be the exquisitely beautiful woman next door. Having said that, I noticed that in a shot or two she has an unflattering nose. Unlike too many Brits, however, she was blessed with beautiful teeth-- and a smile that would melt concrete.
   
   In an interview with the photographer that accompanies these photos that were shot for a spread in "Vanity Fair" that sold out on the newsstands he reminisces about the day he shot these photographs and the good time that both he and his subject had doing them, commenting on what he calls real laughter, laughter from the inside, that he was able to elicit-- it is obvious in the photographs-- from Diana. In a touching note, he mentions that these photographs became the favorites of Diana's boys.
   
   My two favorites-- at least today as they might change the next time I look at this beautifully printed book by Taschen-- are numbers 33 (Diana is clutching her hands at her ankles) and 54 with 45 (the pensive Diana) as a close third. Other favorites are 42, 43, 9, 10, 36, 10 and 23, where she is most beautiful.
   
   Diana is wearing some of the 79 dresses she auctioned off at Christie's for charity. If you are interested, information about the clothes is included at the back of the book. But this isn't about the clothes. It is about Diana; she is certainly no mannequin here.
   
   Sixty or so photographs, both in black and white and in color, are included in this book; they are reproduced and numbered in the back. Fraydon Carter wrote a foreword; Meredith Etherington-Smith, an introduction.
   
   While these photographs take on a special significance because they are the last formal ones of Princess Diana before her tragic death, had she lived, she would of course have been photographed dozens and dozens of times. I cannot imagine, however, that these by Testino would not have been seen as some of the most beautiful, most compelling and would have held their own with whatever photographs came after them.



5. As a fan of Diana's, I enjoyed seeing a more casual side of Diana. The picutres show a side of the princess that reaffirm how beautiful she was in all settings, not just formal. The pictures however are a little soft in the focus arena.

5 comments about Cooking for Kings: The Life of Antonin Careme, the First Celebrity Chef.

1. The review before me explains well the contents of this book. I would only add that you learn how Careme pulled together the skills of speciality cooks to create grand meals and, in turn, earned the title of chef. Sadly, the very process or cooking (carbon monoxide and partilate matter in the lungs from charcoal-fuled stoves and ovens) killed him while only in his 40s but he was dedicated to writing about his skills as much as he used them, thus codifying what we know as Haute' cuisine and creating the first modern cookbooks.
   
   Fortunately Kelly's writing style does not bog down in detail and he is quite readable. The parallel social history of the upper classes is enjoyable reading as well.



2. I am currently in school for my bachelors in culinary and this book is a must have for all students i believe i have only started to read it but so far it is great



3. For an excellent blend of biography and cookbook, choose Cooking For Kings: The Life Of Antonin Careme, The First Celebrity Chef, a survey of the life of the first known celebrity chef Antonin Careme and his recipes. The cook's own memoirs are used to trace his rise from an abandoned child to becoming one of the greatest cooks in Paris. Careme was more than a chef: he invited chef's tools, he cooked for kings and noblemen, and he even made Napoleon's wedding cake. His marriage of food with glamour made him a notable figure - as well as the first chef to become rich by publishing cookbooks. This is a lively history recommended for food fans.



4. In addition to telling the story of the great chef, this book also provides a lot of insight into the history of food and its evolution, and some of the "dark" side of being a chef during the days of Careme. His health suffered mightily from the fumes from the poorly ventilated kitchens during the time, and the long hours that he worked pushed him into exhaustion, further compromising his health.
   
   I found this full of detailed research and interesting anecdotes. The recipes included were also very insightful, and well chosen. It was also written with a good pace and narrative style. Would highly recommend. I've moved on to "Escoffier: The King of Chefs."



5. This is a wonderful book. I'm writing a historical romance and I used this book for reference on the food and times of France and Europe in 1815. It's marvelous.

5 comments about The Firm: The Troubled Life of the House of Windsor.

1. 
   Junor describes the nuts and bolts of how this institution runs. She covers the funding, the ownership, the organizational structure, how the ceremonies are arranged, how often chandeliers are cleaned. We get sketches of the principals and their staffs and their frustrations in managing their images through the fallout of Diana's star power and other less momentuous set backs.
   
   I didn't know that the monarch can dissolve parliament and declare war, nor of the other powers on p. 398; nor did I understand the foundation (very loose) of the Commonwealth (p.289).
   
   While there is a lot of information, it is not well organized. I didn't know what a lot of things were. Some are not explained, but some are explained in later chapters. This not very good organization and long quotes, make the book seem very much like it's been cut and pasted from previous columns and interviews.
   
   The last chapter, discussing the future of this monarchy, gives some comparative information and contains a lot of quotes. It's a disappointment, because this chapter should have been substantive.
   
   The current family has made itself relevant through charitable work, recognizing national achievement, being interesting to tourists and being helpful to the British Department of State. They (and their staffs) put in long hours, and are no doubt dedicated to their country and their work. It seems to me that this institution will probably fade when a generation of monarchs, themselves, tire of it.



2. 
   Before watching the film -title Queen ý'D like to have some ideas about the Royal family and ý think Watching the film after having o good idea about the family and their sufferings of being a member of a royal family will give me a total understanding and pleasure of knownig what you are going to watch.
   The book is perfect



3. I love things about the royal family. But this book put me to sleep faster than a double dose of Ambian.
   Penny is a Prince Of Wales fan, through and through. And she quite likes Camilla. This felt like reading a book written by the Prince's PR machine.
   The most disappointing book about the Windsors ever. Too much minutia and not enough substance. I agree, check it out of the library! Caution. DO NOT BUY!



4. This book is a total waste of time. It is highly subjective and very critical of Princess Diana. The rest of the royal family members come under scrutiny, but Diana fairs the worst. It is more than obvious that the author favors the queen and the Prince of Wales, especially the prince. The author lavishes praise on Kate Middleton and hopes that Middleton and Prince William will settle down and live happily ever after and bring credibility and respectability to the monarchy. Give me a break! I found the book to be tactless and devoid of any substance.



5. I tried reading this yesterday as soon as I got it, but after the first three chapters, I had to put it down.
   
   I enjoy biographies that tell both the postive and negative side of a person or insitution; this book mostly promotes the positive side of Prince Charles, and doesn't really tell of his negative side.

5 comments about True Grace: The Life and Times of an American Princess.

1. I enjoyed this book, it was an easy read, but I agree with those who say that it does have its flaws. There were many typos, words left out of sentences, and sentences that could have been structured better. Any good proofreader would have spotted those things. Also, for a person who led as full a life as Grace Kelly did, the picture section was sorely lacking. I have always admired her, and the book was very imformative, but it could have been better.



2. Some new and interesting material, but I was distracted by the many misspelled words and grammatical errors - needed a good proofreader, not just spellcheck. Also irritating was quoting someone only by a first name, when no one with that name had yet been introduced into the story. Also would have benefitted from a lot more photos. I also think that Grace's charity work got a bit short-changed.



3. best thing about this book is the cover photo. Poorly organized, piece-meal presentation with little new material.



4. This is probably the 6th biography of Grace Kelly that I have read and I felt that it was easily the weakest. In fairness to Wendy Leigh, she had clearly conducted her own research and she did present some new stories and anecdotes. However it felt like she was more pre-occupied with digging up new scandals than with presenting a cohesive picture of who Grace was. She glosses over significant events such as Grace meeting Rainier, why she decided to marry him and barely mentions Grace's death. Instead we get an obsession with every sexual relationship that Grace may or may not have had.
   
   While the book gives the impression of being well researched, when I looked up some of the footnotes it appeared that at least some of these claims were based purely on the word of someone who was the friend of a friend of someone who was now deceased. In a case like that, I feel that a reputable biographer should make it more evident that these are alleged rather than proven facts.
   
   Leigh implies that Grace had a fling with a Paris Match photographer on the ship sailing to Monaco for her wedding. Putting aside the fact that the evidence that this ever occurred is more than weak, if it were true (as Leigh insinuates), it raises all manner of questions about what that says about Grace's feelings towards Rainier and her upcoming wedding. None of those questions are dealt with. The implication throughout is that Grace never particularly loved Rainier and that she was unhappy in her marriage from start to finish. Based on the other books that I have read, this is an over-simplified and unlikely version of events.
   
   Here's a summary of the book: Grace Kelly was a successful actress who had a lot of affairs, sometimes with more than one person at a time. She looked very pretty in all her movies, even though she didn't like her jawline. She decided to marry Prince Rainier even though she didn't love him and she had a last fling only days before the wedding. She was very homesick after the wedding and Rainier started cheating on her almost immediately. She had several more affairs herself, including one with the husband of a friend. She was very unhappy. Some people thought she was icy and some people thought she was warm and friendly. She always believed she'd die in a car crash but she drove her car anyway and then she died.



5. Well, Leigh made have promised her publisher that she would not do a "warmed over" treatment of her subject, but that is exactly how this book comes across. She is proud to make the point that she interviewed over a hundred new sources who were willing to speak on the record about Grace, and even prouder of the fact that she was able to disclose fifteen of her sexual affairs that had never been made public before. (As if that matters.) There were only a few revelations here that caught my attention, like the fact that Grace had a tumble with the husband of one of her bridesmaids and then confessed all--leading to the complete decline of that poor woman's life--and a discussion of the extremely cruel side of Alfred Hitchcock's personality. There was virtually no discussion about Grace's death and too little examination of her complicated relationships with Rainier and the children. Also, there are regrettably few pictures in this book, most of them being publicity shots.
   
   Finally, there is too much emphasis on what seems to be extraneous. One appendix is devoted to Grace's horoscope, and another concentrates on analyzing her handwriting. Leigh also emphasizes in an epilogue about writing the book that she stayed in many of the same hotels that Grace once did, allowing her to "experience and understand her world." But did that contribute to a better book? I don't think so. For a much deeper look into the life of this beloved but controversial princess, read Randy Taraborrelli's 2003 work, Once Upon a Time.

1 comments about Charlotte & Leopold: The True Story of The Original People's Princess.

1. James Chambers has selected, from the British monarchy's treasury of sensational history, the romantic and tragic story of Princess Charlotte (1796-1817, the daughter of the dissolute prince who would become George IV) and her husband Leopold (1790-1865, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld). This is a light biography, told sensationally and often novelistically, with a lot of dialogue, and there are no foot- or endnotes (the author claims that all quotes are already identified in the text, but I didn't find this to be true). It's also very light on the national politics and international background, with events like the Napoleonic Wars being mentioned rather than explained.
   
   Princess Charlotte was the product of the disastrous marriage between George, Prince of Wales (the eldest son of George III) and Caroline of Brunswick. The Waleses split up almost immediately, and Charlotte was brought up under a series of governesses and educated under Bishop John Fisher (whom she called the "Bish-UP", and the author annoyingly mimics this habit). Princess Charlotte was quite popular with the people, and her father, apparently in fits of jealousy, did everything he could to make her life miserable, keeping her away from her mother, firing servants that she grew close to, slighting her publicly, and treating her like a child even after she came of age. She was even grilled about her mother's activities when the Prince of Wales tried (unsuccessfully) to divorce his wife.
   
   The Prince of Wales was good enough, however, not to force Charlotte into marriage, so after an attempted match with the hereditary Prince of Orange, and an encounter with the rakish Prince August of Prussia that could have ruined her reputation, Charlotte finally met and settled on marrying a handsome officer of the Russian heavy cavalry, Prince Leopold. Even though he had not been her first choice for a husband, she quickly grew to love him, and by all accounts they had a happy and down-to-earth marriage. They did almost everything together, and Chambers relates a charming scene in which an old friend comes to visit and finds the couple at a table engrossed in piles of paper. In response to her hesitancy, Charlotte invited her in, saying, "`[T]is only Mr and Mrs Coburg settling their accounts."
   
   Things took a tragic turn when, after a worrisome pregnancy and a difficult labor, Charlotte delivered a stillborn son and then passed away shortly afterwards. The future of the monarchy was left uncertain and Leopold distraught (as was the obstetrician, whose death would complete what is known to medical history as the "triple obstetrical tragedy"). Although Leopold never really got over her untimely death (he died saying her name), he remarried fifteen years later and named his daughter Charlotte (later Empress Carlota of Mexico).
   
   Overall, this book was entertaining but a bit disappointing for its lack of depth. It's a decent introduction to Charlotte's life, but for depth and insight, a better (if older) choice is Prinny's daughter: A life of Princess Charlotte of Wales.

5 comments about Mistress of the Elgin Marbles: A Biography of Mary Nisbet, Countess of Elgin.

1. Susan Nagel's biography of the Countess of Elgin makes history come alive in a dramatic, romantic page-turner. You'll be transported to a land of wealth and privilege, where egg-sized emeralds are exchanged as small tokens of affection, where cannons salute the arrival of dignitaries into new ports and where love of art and love of man mixes to create a heady and destructive combination of emotions.
   
   
   
   This book is perfect for a day at the beach or an evening curled up at home - if only all history could be this fun!



2. "Remember the ladies" Abigail Adams charged her husband John -- that's what Nagel does with "Mary Nisbet"; she fills in fascinating and colorful details of the world of the women of society in England during the war against Napoleon. All the teasing glimpses we get in O'Brian's masculine epic are fleshed out, as it were; the opulence of the Bey's court; Emma Hamilton's manipulation of Admiral Nelson; the impact of the war with Napoleon on life and travel -- all the dinner parties O'Brian glossed over in passing come springing to vivid life as we read from Mary's actual letters. If you loved Master and Commander or the whole series, pick this up and treat yourself to a richer picture of the period.



3. Quite a Girl! We have this vision of the women of a century ago being totally subservient to the men. It has been the men who made history. Where there have been women in the story, they are often viewed only as a companion to the men, as examples, the recent biographies of Washington and Nelson. In recent years we've begun to see well written biographies of women who certainly led fascinating lives.
   
   Mary Nisbet was smart, rich, beautiful. She took smallpox vaccine to the Middle East, brought classical marbles from the Parthenon back to England (before Napoleon could get them). Then she 'replaced' her husband with his best friend.
   
   Quite a Girl, Very interesting character, well written book.



4. I just finished reading Susan Nagel's wonderful Biography of Mary Nisbet, Countess of Elgin. Rarely do I read Biographies and feel so intimately close to the subject as I did with this well researched piece of work. I felt as if I had lived right along with Mary through her travels, adventures, exploits and tragedies. Packed with Romantic locals and historical people. An intimate peek into a fascinating life, who was Mary Nisbet, Countess of Elgin.



5. Mary Nisbet was the definition of an aristocrat. She lived a life most people dream of: She was good looking, charming, intelligent, extremely wealthy, and was admired and respected by some of the most powerful people around.
   
   So what will you get out of by reading this book? Your be put into the shoes of Mary Nisbet and her extravagant lifestyle. Your get to know her spendthrift husband and his preoccupation with marbles from Parthenon. But really not much else.
   
   The book is based off of Mary's diary, which really helped give the book life.
   So, I'm giving the book 3 stars because the book was written fairly well, but the story was a little boring.