3 comments about Five Gold Rings: A Royal Wedding Souvenir Album from Queen Victoria to Queen Elizabeth II (Royalty).

1. A wonderful book that takes you back in time for 5 royal marriages. I had a splendid time reading and looking at the photos. I have been watching the "Royals" all my life. I remember the day Elizabeth and Phillip were married, and this little book just made those memories much more clearer than ever before! A "must" for "royal watchers"!!



2. There's something irrepressible about a wedding of royalty. Even the most jaded of us is capable of maybe an 'awww' or two as we get to see a bit of a fairy tale come to life. There is pomp everywhere, from the fabulous gown and jewels that the bride is wearing, the wedding cakes and favours, to public displays of the wedding gifts.
   
   This handsome little souvenir album is to commemorate an upcoming wedding anniversary -- that of England's Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, who will have been married for sixty years, in November 2007. It is also a look at how Royal weddings have changed and evolved from fairly private ceremonies that were witnessed by close family members and courtiers, to now what is a spectacle watched by millions on the television and launching a flurry of books, magazines and various souvenirs from the pleasant to the grossly tacky.
   
   The five weddings themselves occur in a period of time that spans just over a century, from 1840 to 1947, with the criteria that either the bride or groom would be a monarch of the United Kingdom.
   
   The first wedding is that between Queen Victoria and her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, in 1840. Victoria had been Queen of Great Britain for two years when her wedding was celebrated, and public curiosity was intense as to who she would choose to be her consort. With the rise of new printing techniques, there were now ways that the public could observe, albeit from a distance -- there were special prints and panoramas that were printed to feed the curiosity about the event.
   
   About twenty years later, the next royal wedding occured, this time between Victoria and Albert's eldest son, Bertie, the Prince of Wales and the future Edward VII, and his fiancee, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, 1863. Now there was the art of photography to add to the documents; some of these were hand-tinted to create a nearly painting like quality. The gifts were also more opulent, and this time, were described in a special magazine that supplied all of the details from what the guests were wearing to engravings that showed various aspects of the wedding service itself.
   
   Thirty years later, another wedding occured, this time between Bertie's son, George, Duke of York, and his cousin, Princess Mary of Teck, in 1894. This time, celebrations and public notice were high, with various royalties from around Europe visiting to pay their respects. The gifts were put on public display this time, and admission was charged, with the proceeds going to a charity. The bride's trousseau was described in various ladies magazines in lavish detail and illustrations.
   
   The fourth wedding was that of George VI and Queen Mary's second son, Albert, Duke of York, and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923. No one really expected them to become sovereigns of Great Britain, and so the celebrations were not quite as extravagant as might be expected. But one notable addition was that this was the first royal wedding to be filmed, and soon there would be opportunity for anyone to see it, all for the price of a ticket to the cinema, and sitting through a newsreel.
   
   The fifth wedding was in 1947, with that of two of Queen Victoria's great-great-grandchildren -- Princess Elizabeth, and Prince Philip of Greece. After the dreary years of WWII, and the troubles of rebuilding, London was ready for a celebration. The outpouring from the public was immense, and it seems that all of England took the day off for a holiday. The marriage proved to be one of the most successful in the royal family, and appears to be still quite solid after nearly sixty years.
   
   Each wedding goes into some detail about the clothing, providing pictures and closeups of the brides' gowns, showing some of the intricate sewing and decoration that went into the making. As was traditional, all of the clothing worn were made from British materials and designers. What I found especially beautiful were the samples of lace and embroidery, often with monograms and special designs incorporated into the designs. A very brief history of the couple is also included, talking a little about their childhoods, and what happened after the weddings. At the end of the book, there is also a listing of what music was performed at each wedding, with a few surprises tucked in.
   
   What may surprise you is what you will not find in this book. There isn't any mention of Lady Diana, or of the notorious wedding of Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson.
   
   For anyone interested in royalty, and how what started as a private celebration soon became an opportunity for public celebration, this is a lovely, well-made and designed book. The photographs and pictures are unusual, many of which I had not seen before, and gave a sense of intimacy.
   
   The author, Jane Roberts, is the Royal Librarian, and has compiled a beautiful little volume on the lore of royal weddings. For anyone interested in the English monarchy, it would be a nice addition to their collection.
   
   Five stars. Recommended.



3. A wonderful display of that special wedding. It was like the Queen was showing these momentos to me herself.

No comments about David & Winston: How a Friendship Changed History.

2 comments about The King, the Crook, and the Gambler: The True Story of the South Sea Bubble and the Greatest Financial Scandal in History.

1. If you already know what stock market bubbles are and why and how they work, at least generally, this book is a nice history of the political background to the South Sea Bubble and, to a lesser extent, the Mississippi Company.
   
   The South Sea Bubble of 1720 was the first `speculative bubble' in the English speaking world (the tulip mania in Holland was the first bubble). It has become better known recently because of the Internet/dotcom bubble. A big focus of the book is the fraud and political corruption that allowed the bubble to occur. This would have been ok if that had been all the book was about, but the author tries to make the book bigger by covering, in less detail, the almost contemporaneous situation in France - the Mississippi Company/Law System. There are also quotes from participants in the dotcom bubble at the heading of each chapter
   
   The problem is that trying to draw parallels (even implicitly) doesn't work if you don't present the whole situation. It is confusing, incomplete, and essentially incorrect. The author should have given an explanation of what bubbles are and what distinguishes these two, besides being first. Unfortunately, he leaves the reader believing that the reason the South Sea Bubble happened was because of corruption and fraud, and implicitly condemns the dotcom bubble.
   
   Do not take this as a complete explanation. If this is your first exposure to this event there are better sources out there (Wikipedia, for one). An interesting novel that illustrates what it was like to live in London during 1719 (just as the bubble was heating up) is A Conspiracy of Paper: A Novel (Ballantine Reader's Circle) by David Liss.
   
   The current title is misleading. The king (George I) was barely involved, the crook was the founder of the South Sea Company, and the gambler was John Law of the Law System and the Mississippi Company. This book was published under two other titles, The Secret History of the South Sea Bubble: The World's First Great Financial ScandalA Very English Deceit: The Secret History of the South Sea Bubble and the First Great Financia, both of which are much better titles.



2. This book takes a seldom covered but interesting period of history and provides both an excellent and inadequate coverage of events. In some aspects, such as John Law and the Mississipi Company, the formation of the South Sea Company and in particular the political machinations following the burst, the book exceeds expectations. Unfortunately in other areas such as the demise of the company and how the government handled the financial reprecusions on the national debt, which was the entire basis of the project, on is left wanting more.

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

1. William Hague has a pleasant, straightforward and limpid style in which he can convey not only complex political situations, but a warmth of feeling towards his subject and a sensitive and empathic interpretation of behaviour and background.
   
   He begins with Pitt's extremely precocious childhood. He was tutored at home, in large part by his father (whose loving nature may also be something of a revelation to readers). From earliest childhood young Pitt breathed in politics. Hague speculates that he learnt not only from his father's successes (his oratory, his foreign policy), but also from his failures (going to the Lords in 1766, or leaving the post of First Lord of the Treasury to someone else).
   
   There are exciting accounts of several key episodes in his life: his rise to becoming Prime Minister at the age of 24; the Regency Crisis of 1788/9; his resignation over his disagreement with George III over Catholic Emancipation in 1801 (beautifully analyzed), and his promise, after the King's recovery from his recurring malady, never to raise the matter again; the drifting apart between Pitt and his old friend and nominee Addington during the latter's interregnum.
   
   No minister except Walpole has for so long and so completely dominated the House of Commons. Pitt was universally acclaimed as a great orator, though only a very few passages quoted in this book - foremost among them his speech in 1792 advocating the abolition of the slave trade - make for stirring reading these days. Part of the appeal of his speeches is said to have been the cogency of their logical structure and his mastery of detail, which is not so easily conveyed in a book. He was a brilliant manager of the nation's finances - but his own were often in a ruinous state. He could not be bothered to pay much attention to them, and refused to take sinecure offices (except, at the King's insistence, the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports) or a large donation offered by the merchants of the City of London. He was hugely in debt at the time of his resignation in 1801, but he refused all offers of help, from the King, from Parliament, from his successor Addington in the form of sinecure offices, or from the City. Only through help from a handful of his closest friends was the pressure of debt slightly eased.
   
   For Pitt rightly prided himself on his personal probity. He would accept nothing that might be construed as putting him under an obligation; but, though he was personally bored with appeals for his patronage, he did not scruple to allow his lieutenants to manage patronage and bribery on a massive scale, especially at critical moments of his rule. (Hague mentions only in passing his massive inflation of the peerage.)
   
   His finances and his speeches made him a great war leader, but he was less so in the actual conduct of the wars. He underestimated France in the early days and overestimated Britain's military (as distinct from naval) resources. He made miscalculations of the kind that Chatham probably would not have made (though Chatham, of course, had faced a far less dynamic France). He twice (1796, 1797) sought for peace with France because of the immense drain on Britain's financial resources, but, encouraged by a string of French setbacks in 1798 and 1799, turned down the peace overtures Napoleon made immediately after seizing power in France in 1799. In this latter refusal he was strongly backed by his cousin, the hawkish foreign minister William Grenville.
   
   Hague brings out the importance of Grenville throughout Pitt's career. A staunch ally until Pitt's resignation, he became so impatient with Pitt's early forbearance with regard to Addington that he joined Fox in opposition - which George III could not forgive. So when Pitt returned to office in 1804, he could not give a post to Grenville, who then practically became a Foxite Whig. As a result, Pitt no longer had the mastery of the Commons or even of the Cabinet that he had had before, and it added to the strain in those years of Ulm and Austerlitz. By that time Pitt was a shadow of his former self, increasingly exhausted and in dreadful health.
   
   It is on the human side that Hague excels, and there is not always scope for that in the story. Much of Pitt's work in government - finance, trade, administrative reform, the shuffling of seats around the cabinet table - gives little scope to more than the thoroughly workmanlike treatment it receives here. Even the account of the wars with France are no more than that. For me, the best parts of the book deal with Pitt's character. He has generally been considered cold; but he had many close friends in whose company he was witty and amusing. A fine chapter discusses this contrast and shows Pitt, when Prime Minister, as relaxed and warm with family and real friends. There is a long and moving letter he wrote to Wilberforce when the latter announced his religious conversion in 1785. There is an astonishing scene a couple of years before his death when at one moment he was larking around with his intimates whom he allowed to blacken his face with burnt cork, and a moment later, quickly cleaned up, stiffly received political visitors. Between Pitt and his mother there was great warmth and affection. In his letters to her he always made light of difficulties or his poor health, not just because he was by nature optimistic, but because he wanted to spare her worries.
   
   It is astonishing that Hague should have researched and written this book of 592 pages inside two years. The masterly ten-page summing up at the end is not only balanced in its judgments, but tells us a good deal about Hague himself. It is clear that he not only admires Pitt, but feels a great affection for him; and he will make many readers feel the same.



2. I'm trying to think what I knew about the politics of late 18th century Britain before I read William Hague's well written biography of William Pitt the Younger, imaginatively named just that. Not much. I knew about Edmund Burke and his opposition to the French Revolution. I knew a few military leaders from reading about the American Revolution. I've seen the brilliant film about King George the Third's madness, and I vaguely knew that there were two William Pitts, father and son, who dominated British Political life during that era, and that Pitt the younger was amazingly young when he got elected Prime Minister.
   
   Now I know quite a bit more. For one thing, Pitt was not technically "Prime Minister". Rather, he had been "First Lord of the Treasury" which was the most senior position in His Majesty's government. He had served for some twenty years, and has been a member of the House of Commons for most of his life. He has, indeed, been chosen to lead the British government at age 24.
   
   How does so young a man become first Minister to the British crown? The answer is, one is picked by the King. George the Third's alliance with William Pitt was one of convenience - he had loathed the other potential political leaders (Primarily Pitt's arch nemesis Charles James Fox). Pitt was the only member of the House of Commons who had credibility enough to form a government, and whom the King felt he could support.
   
   That is not to say that Pitt's talents had nothing to do with with his meteoric rise - far from it. Pitt, a great orator, became a leading presence in the House of Commons. With brilliant tactics (and shameless use of patronage), he formed his own party, and later split the opposition Whig party (with the help of the French Revolution) to rule the house with a huge majority. He had also been one of the first British politicians to care about the views of the majority of Britons not represented in Parliament.
   
   It has been Pitt's very success that made him vulnerable; by 1801, the opposition more or less ceased to exist, and the King felt much less reliant on Mr. Pitt. When the First Lord of the Chancellery clashed with the Monarch on the issue of Catholic Emancipation (giving Catholics the right to vote and be elected), the King felt confident enough to flatly refuse Pitt. Pitt resigned rather then serve without full powers.
   
   In 1804, as the Napoleonic Wars got worse, Pitt returned to office. This time his coalition was shakier, and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as Prime Minister had he not died in January 1806, at the age of 46.
   
   William Hague, a one time would be Tory PM, who had been compared to Pitt the younger by none other then Margaret Thatcher, offer a very readable and compelling biography. His book is not particularly analytical, but it is very well written and researched. I wish Hague would have put Pitt more in context, both of British and International Politics (we get no mention of America after the Revolution, no word of the remaining colonies, and very little about the internal politics of any other country save France), and the industrial revolution. Nonetheless, as someone who doesn't read many biographies, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Whatever the merits of Hague as a politician, he has a future as a historian.
   
   (By the way, my copy of the book contains a recommendation by British Tory PM John Major "If you only buy one political biography this year, make it this one". Talk about damning with faint praise. I guess it could have been worse "If you only buy one biography of an 18th century British politician named Pitt in December...")
   
   Speaking of Merits, how should we assess the statesmanship of William Pitt the younger? Ultimately, I think Pitt was a very competent, but not great, Prime Minister. In his first decade as prime minister, Britain enjoyed Peace, and Pitt managed to survive as Prime Minister, expand his coalition somewhat, rationalize the tax system, and begin to balance the government's deficit. The reduction of the deficit, with view for its ultimate extinction, was Pitt's greatest achievement, albeit one that was aided greatly by the fast growing economy in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and that all but disappeared when the wars of the French Revolution started.
   
   Other then economically, Pitt managed to achieve few if any of the reforms he had supported. He failed to reform the electorate, abolish the slave trade, or (later) achieve Catholic emancipation.
   
   As War leader, Pitt commanded over a mostly unsuccessful war effort, which saw the rise of three coalitions against the armies of the French Revolution, and later Napoleon. French forces defeated all in term, and Pitt died just days after receiving word of Napoleon's greatest Victory in the Battle of Austerlitz.
   
   This is not to say that Pitt was a failure. He had been a strong supporter of the navy, and British control of the Seas became an unalterable fact under his watch, and due to his effort and leadership. Pitt had secured the Unification of the British and Irish Parliament. Both achievements would last for over a century. Politically, Pitt planted the roots of the Tory party, and managed to survive various crises, including the insanity of his patron, George III. If nothing else, Pitt has led his nation through some of the most difficult transformations of its age, internal and external. And while there had still been a long road ahead, by the time Pitt passed away, Britain has surely reached, in Churchill's terms, "The End of the Beginning".



3. The younger William Pitt lived a life that is not widely known or appreciated in the USA and this well-written and entertaining biography should help to remedy that. It is so unusual for a super-genius to have the opportunity, interest and special aptitude for politics Pitt had that the example deserves much study. We are fortunate that William Hague, the author, did not become Prime Minister himself in 2001 so that he was free to stay in Yorkshire and complete this work.



4. William Pitt the Younger (or as he was described by some of his contemporaries Billy Pitt) is a book written by a politician about a politician (you may remember that William Hague was an ex-leader of the Tory party). He was indeed an extraordinary politician although a very limited man.
   
   The story is on a grand scale, prime ministers, kings, wars, revolution, disasters, and the central figure, a larger-than-life classic hero.
   
   He came from famous stock, his father, known as the Great Commoner, was an heroic figure who in his own time was the equivalent of the Prime Minister, then known as the First Lord of the Treasury although this particular position was held by the Duke of Newcastle who sat in the House Of Lords. William Pitt the Elder was the leader in the House of Commons. He took office at the age of 48 in 1756, some three years before William Pitt the Younger was born. He served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, at that time there were two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for the Southern Department dealt with matters relating to southern European countries, including France and Spain, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department dealt with Northern European countries such as Russia.
   
   His father came to be regarded as the saviour of the nation and was instrumental in defeating the traditional enemy of the English, the French. He was regarded as the saviour of the nation and was a great orator.
   
   William Pitt the Younger was raised in an intensely political family and learned a great deal from his father's capacity to achieve high office without money or patronage from the King. His father was the more extraordinary because he was, by the standards of the times, incorruptible. Unfortunately this was associated with accumulation of enormous debts, a habit followed by his son. He suffered from a wide range of ailments including gout, bowel problems and similar disorders. He married at the age of 46 and proceeded to have five children of whom only his two eldest survived into their 30s. After leaving office he was eventually persuaded back into office by George III and to reduce the burden on him emotionally and physically he accepted a title and became Earl of Chatham. This eventually proved to be his downfall and damaged his reputation. William Pitt the Younger lived through all these events before he was 10 years old! Even by that age he must have been aware that he belonged to a father and a family that stood apart from and were treated differently from everyone else.
   
   He was educated at home and although uninhibited by peer pressure was required from the outset to meet adult standards. His tutor stated "William never seemed to learn but merely to recollect". His father took an active, usually daily, role in his education. As William Hague says "at no other time in British history has the head of one administration acted as a tutor of another".
   
   His father taught him to speak in a clear and melodious voice by making him recite each day passages from the best English poets, particularly Shakespeare and Milton. As William Pitt the Younger later said " Lord Chatham had bid him take up any book in some foreign language with which he was well acquainted, in Latin, Greek, or French, for example. Lord Chatham then enjoined him to read out of this work into English, stopping when he was not sure of the word to be used in English, until the right word came to mind, and then proceed. At first, he had often to stop for a while before he could recollect the proper word, but he found the difficulties gradually disappear, until what was a toll him at first became at last an easy and familiar task. " It is perhaps, not surprising that he developed early on a highly unusual ability to speak clearly, structure an argument, and think on his feet. He was aided in this by a formidable memory.
   
   He went to Cambridge University at the age of 14. He was a sickly adolescent and spent the summers in Cambridge and the winters with his family. He was intensely attached to his mother and his father and he idolised. There was intense political discussion between himself and his father. He made friends easily, despite his youth, and became part of a large social circle. He made many lifelong friendships. To insiders he was regarded as great fun but to the external world he showed a stern and aloof demeanour, even from an early age.
   
   His father was deeply opposed to the policy of the government which led to the American Revolution. There was great opposition to Roman Catholics leading to the Gordon riots in 1780. It was a dramatic and exciting time. Unfortunately, his father died in 1778 deeply in debt and the family finances were only saved by a grant from Parliament of 20,000 pounds. Pitt trained as a lawyer and indeed practised as such briefly. This was a time of rotten boroughs, large cities with no representation and some electorates with only two voters. Corruption was rampant. The largest seats cost each candidate the equivalent of 5,000,000 pounds in today's terms on electoral expenses.
   
   Over half the boroughs could be purchased in one way or another. However, hehad no money and depended on a patron. One was eventually found who fortunately was not very demanding and he entered Parliament in January 1781 at the age of 22. At that time one in six members were under the age of 30. He quickly established himself as a great orator. He entered a house containing some extraordinary characters including Fox, Sheridan, and William Wilberforce.
   
   The Whigs, including Fox, threw out Lord North because of his disastrous loss of the American colonies and took office. Unfortunately they were violently opposed by George III. The King acted in an unconstitutional way so as to indicate that he had no confidence in his government. This was, even by the standards of the day, outrageous but led to Pitt being offered the position of "Prime Minister" and taking office in December 1783 at the age of 24.
   
   He remained in office, apart from a break between December 1801 and April 1804 (having resigned office for complex reasons including the intransigent attitude of George III to the question of Catholic Emancipation) until his death at the age of 49 in January 1806.
   
   It is astonishing to recognise that throughout much of that time he was Prime Minister with virtually no staff, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. The House of Commons was his arena of greatness. From a position of running a minority government he quickly gained the ascendancy to such a point that Fox did not attend parliament for some years.
   
   During this time he dealt with the madness of King George. He attempted and then abandoned attempts to bring about parliamentary reform. He revolutionised the running of the government including bringing in the first income-tax. He dealt with the French Revolution and all its consequences and was the first to attempt to put the finances of Great Britain in order using a sinking fund to pay off debt. It is salutary to realise that five future prime ministers served in his Cabinet.
   
   Throughout much of this time he retained his aloof demeanour, he had little contact and no obvious interest in women apart from on one occasion and, if anything, appeared to be an asexual ascetic, except that he enjoyed his booze. He routinely drank three bottles of port per night. William Hague makes the point that bottles of port in those days were about half the size of the standard bottle today. Nevertheless that is a considerable intake and is thought to have contributed to his early death.
   
   He had been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports which provided an income of 3000 pounds but his own finances were a terrible mess, in part because of his lack of interest, his lack of time, and because of his refusal to accept any sinecures.
   
   He was the dominating the political figure of his times but was not a popular figure in the House of Commons, he did not socialise with other members most of whom he treated with disdain. There is a telling story of him, in his 40s, playing with two old friends and his niece, who was living with him. They were attempting to blacken his face with burnt cork in a vigorous indoor wrestling match. Two grandees arrived to see Mr Pitt. One of the participants in the struggle saw him straighten himself, put on his public mask as the two grandees approached him bowing, hesitant, and concerned about his response. He treated them with some contempt, scarcely looking at them, dismissed them after answering a query and then quickly returned to the frolic.
   
   Although Sir Robert Walpole is recognised as the first Prime Minister and indeed was longer in office than Pitt nevertheless Pitt first articulated the concept of a prime minister. He also brought great efficiencies to the running of the country and for a number of years before the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars the country was running at a significant surplus. Whilst incorruptible himself he used patronage with great political sensitivity to achieve his aims.
   
   It is extraordinary that he accomplished so much and was dead by the age of 49.
   
   William Hague's biography is the best sort of biography, it is fascinating to read with telling stories about Pitt and his contemporaries and allows us to see Pitt in the context of his times. Hague repeatedly dwells on the sheer volume of work that Pitt was able to get through, his mastery of detail, especially financial detail. He was known for his extraordinary grasp of the classics and his capacity to produce the apt quote at the right time. He was known for giving speeches off-the-cuff lasting up to three hours which were models of clarity, reasoned argument leading to inexorable conclusions without any apparent preparation.
   
   Hague is also fascinated by his ability to manipulate the King, the Prince of Wales, and other influential figures. He made great enemies but had enduring and loyal friends. With the passage of time, Hague makes it clear that anyone in office for any length of time is gradually brought down by the burden of accumulated mistakes, problems, enemies, and the eventual boredom of the populace.
   
   By the way Hague quotes from a letter written by Pitt in which he uses the word " se'nnight". I leave it to you to work out what it means.
   
   This one volume biography provides a fascinating introduction both to politics but also to the history behind such events as the Battle of Trafalgar and the English view of the various phases of the French Revolution. It made me want to read more about Fox, Grenville, George III and other larger-than-life figures. I commend it to you.
   
   Michael Epstein



5. Pitt the younger led his nation through the Napoleonic wars, the first stages of the industrial revolution, and a transformation of Britian, yet all the book seems to talk about is his health, his speaches and where he traveled.
   
   I am sorry, but I selected this book while in Heathrow Airport waiting for a flight back to the US. I knew about Pitt the younger and the times in which he lived. I had hoped for a book that talked about a man in the center of his times. Instead I got an introspective work focused on the triangle between Pitt, Fox and George III. Based on Hague's work they were the only three people who mattered in the world.
   
   I guess I am not the anglophile I thought I was as I found this work admirably written, well researched and understandably proud of Britian's first modern Prime Minister and global leader.
   
   Unforuntaley it was not very interesting -- I am not sure if that is due to Hague's account (I kind of doubt) or Pitt's interior and financially centered life.
   
   It probably has more to do with me being an american and wanting to know more about the man -- the person. The US is after all pretty much a show and tell kind of culture without the reserve for status and class as the UK.
   
   Either way, if you are a strong Anglophile who knows much about the times -- then this is a well crafted detailed account. If you are a part time reader of biographies and history, then you may want to give this one a pass.
   
   No offense intended to our friends in Britian -- Pitt is surely one of the few men who have make the UK great.

No comments about Charles, Prince of Wales: A Birthday Souvenir Album.

5 comments about Warrior: The Legend Of Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen.

1. An almost uncritical biography of the subject, and a shamelssly uncritcal preudo-autobiography of the author. All cited sources are in Meinertzhagen's own publications. Barely worth the effort of reading.



2. A very disappointing book - it should be subtitled "a mini biography of Peter H Capstick." Capstick is arrogant enough to think that the reader will be just as interested in him as the they are in Meinertzhagen! It is not well written as Capstick rambles off on tangents (usually about himself) at very regular intervals. He professes to be an expert where he clearly is not eg he disputes the well known fact that anti-malarial drugs can mask the symptoms of the disease.
   
   A great pity that a potentially interesting book has been spoilt by a self interested author!



3. Col. Meinertzhagen was one of the greatest warriors of his day, a Richard Burton, Lord Stanley and Lawrence of Arabia all wrapped into one. He was also a fascinating individual who was a big game hunter and at the same time a man who collected one of the greatest bird collections for museum use at the time. An expert therefore on birds and a jungle fighter against Leetow-Vorbecks Germans in German East Africa(Tanzania). He led Africans in many fights of the First World War and was most well known for leading secret British septerfuge missions against the Turks in Palestine, leading to the capture of Beersheba. In the 1930s he was an admirer of fascism but hated the Nazis for their racist policies. In the 1920s he was also a great admirer of ZIonism and claimed to be an essential element in the founding of Israel, a fact overlooked today. He was a great warrior and this book tells his story full of bravado. The book concentrates also on his big game hunting exploits, but it is afanciful account.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



4. This is a very bloody book, but so was Africa in the 1890-1920 timeframe - A Post-Bellum backwater - and one wonders why the British or the Germans were there.
   
   The best passsages cover Meinhertzhagen as a leader of men - his boldness and his careful calculations, as an intelligence operative and officer - his gaining entry to a Russian fort is hilarious, and his observations of Post-Bellum Africa - where the slave trade has collapsed and the Boer War is over with.
   
   In the end, all things written and done by Meinertzhagen must be judged against his role as a British Intelligence Officer - his diary entries, his "ornithology", and his whereabouts and actions. The one true constant is his devotion and loyalty to the Empire and his empathy for the downtrodden and unjustly treated.
   
   The dispatch of men with "amateur" interests is an old, old ruse that reaches as far back as Aristotle's trip to Thessaly if not further.



5. Not your typical Capstick book, this focuses more on the military wars and campaigns in Africa from a British poit of view.
   Still very interesting.

5 comments about Pepys' Diary (Highbridge Classics).

1. Used to listen to this on tape and wanted to replace it with cd so I could listen to it in the car. If you want to get a taste of life in 1660's London, this is it. The written diaries are also fascinating but fairly hard to read, so Kenneth Branagh helps us out here. Anyone interested in English history will be very pleased with this diary. If you don't yet know who Pepys is then, for sure, you need to buy this. I've listened to it at least twice over the years and alway hear something new with each listening. Highly recommended!



2. 
   I chose to listen to this book because I felt I "should" be better acquainted with what can arguably be called the most famous diary in history. I looked upon it as a chore that would improve my mind.
   
   I may have, indeed, improved my mind but it turned out to be no chore! What an absolute delight. I've read many historical novels that weren't half as exciting, funny and fascinating as this book. I kept having to remind myself that this man REALLY lived through all these things -- the plague, the great London fire, the machinations of the court.
   
   Plus, his willingness to expose in frank (and sometimes bawdy) detail his personal life, health, sexual dalliances, etc., brought *him* as well as his times vividly to life.
   
   I doubt if trying to read through the actual diary would be as much fun, but the editors' careful selection of entries culled out the best bits while never losing continuity.
   
   And what more can I add to the praise of Branagh as narrator? The man is a phenomenal talent and shows it in this book. Never over-acting, he manages to convey a perfect tone (for instance, just the hint of a whisper at the more personal parts, as though Pepys was confiding in us).
   
   All in all, this book convinced me that improving my mind doesn't HAVE to be tedious.



3. Of course it is not the complete Pepy's diary but is wonderful to listen to while on long drives. Kenneth Brannagh as the reader brings life into the English language of yesterday. I wonder if a movie is in the offing.



4. Samuel Pepys' Pepys' Diary is an outstanding classic which comes to life in audio cd format, narrated by Kenneth Branagh whose background in film and direction lend to a vivid narrative indeed. Pepys' classic has lasted centuries because it records in vivid descriptions the bygone world of 17th-century London life: this vivid written word in turn translates well into audio and brings a rich history to life.



5. I loved these tapes. I concur with the reviews that they are addictive - better for a long country ride than a harried rush hour. Then let Pepys (Branagh) be your witty and engrossing travel companion.
   
   It obviously helps to be familar with the Restoration to enhance your enjoyment of these diaries; though many with even a general background will still find them entertaining. Highly recommended.

2 comments about Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen.

1. This is one of the best books on Boudica yet, and if you only read one, this should be the one you read. There is relatively little known about the woman that has become so important in some many ways to so many segments of society, and what is "known" should be treated with caution. Hingley and Unwin do an excellent job of showing what we do know, what we don't know, and what we might know but should think critically about in the context of the story of Boudica. They manage to create an interesting story without compromising on the evidence, avoiding what so many do when they say all the right things about biased sources and then mostly ignore what they just said and relate what those sources say as fact. Instead, Hingley and Unwin weave the critical assessment of both written and archaeological courses into their discussion in a way that keep it relevant to the story they tell. This story is given substance by the up-to-date discussion of current archaeological research on the period, which provides as useful review for professionals and interested others alike. The second half of the book was also interesting, providing a review of the ways in which "Boudica" became transformed into "Boadicea", the cultural icon variously of the right, the left, and the centre. This is far more standard in this type of literature, but nonetheless valuable in terms of what it brings to the table.
   Probably most importantly, they manage to do all this in a highly readable fashion. Tackling the deconstruction of assumptions of Roman superiority, the inevitability of Romanization, and the uncritical use of written sources can often get mired down in jargon and so sail beyond what most people understand or care about. However, this book does it in a way that is both accessible and convincing. Nice job all around!



2. This book could not be given enough stars. It takes a fascinating episode in history, the revolt of the Queen of the Iceni of Britain in AD 60-61, and looks at it from historical, archaeological, literary, and mythical points of view. It shows how Boudica has went from simply the best-remembered of many contemporary British female warlords to variously being portrayed as a sadistic villian, a feminist hero, and a champion of British nationalism and politics. Overall, the book examines the real Boudica's role in history and her subsequent impact on modern Britain in a manner that is both informative and enjoyable to read. It is a fine source on Queen Boudica, the Celtic 'Woman of Victory' from every perspective!

5 comments about Coleridge: Early Visions, 1772-1804.

1. This treatment of Coleridge's early life is excellent in scope & detail; in fact, it won a prize. But its strength-- objectivity-- is its weakness. Holmes expresses no imaginitive sympathy for his subject. He writes about Romanticism with the detatchment of an entymologist examining a butterfly. And while he treats Coleridge's pathology in an overtly psychological manner, he fails to identify the pathologies he describes -- like a doctor who collects symptoms without making a diagnosis.
   
   The result is an outstanding example of conventional literary biography, but one that is insensitive to growth, imagination, and mind in the act of making the mind -- or why Coleridge was passionate about them. Those interested in these must seek elsewhere, but this volume remains a good place to learn the facts of Coleridge's life, despite its dry prose.



2. This is the Coleridge I thought I knew through his poetry. Holmes brings him to life in this first volume of Coleridge's early years. The book makes you wish you had known Coleridge personally and shared in his life. His life is complex and challenging and so it must have been for Holmes to research and write Coleridge's life. In fact, Holmes seems to have a special knowledge into the life of one of the greatest poets of the English language. This book gave me insights into Coleridge's works I had not had before. If you want to learn more about Samuel Taylor Coleridge, his life and his works, this is the book to read.



3. Somehow Holmes produces scholarly biographies that make compulsive reading. He never fictionalizes or puts thoughts in his subjects' heads that he has no authority for - and yet he keeps us turning those pages. Is it the subjects he choses? Shelley and Coleridge both had strongly "plotted" lives. Coleridge married the sister of Southey's wife and fell in love with the sister of Wordsworth's wife. I liked his comment on Coleridge's father's predecessor in the the benefice of St Mary's Ottery.



4. The general reader and the scholar should enjoy this book. Holmes does set Coleridge talking.

   Don't miss Owen Barfield's WHAT COLERIDGE THOUGHT if you want to explore the matephysician.




5. If you think Coleridge was finished by 1804, think again. True, all his great poems had been written but an astonishing life of triumph and tragi-comedy lay ahead. "Coleridge, Darker Reflections" is the long-awaited second half of this award-winning biography of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. It covers the period 1804-1834 - a time when, according to popular belief, Coleridge's fertile imagination had dried up and he faced a slippery slide to an opium-induced decline. But not according to the author Richard Holmes, described as "Our best post-war biographer". He is a superb story teller and unlike so many biographers before him, deeply in touch with his subject. His first volume, "Coleridge Early Visions" introduced the poet to a new generation of admirers (including myself who was fired into writing a play for children about the poet's early magical years). This wonderful book will surely establish STC as a troubled but gigantic genius of the 19th century. Holme's own genius is to show us Coleridge the man. "Always on the knife edge between tragedy and comedy" said Holmes at the London book launch this week (21st October 1998) Holmes has worked assiduously through STC's vast notebooks. Like his namesake, Sherlock, the author clearly enjoys the detection element of biography. His is a personal search for the man, his millieu and his place. Holmes retraces STC's footsteps around England - echoing the desperate perambulations of the wandering poet. Holmes tells this astonishing story at a cracking pace - he has the thriller-writer's gift for making you turn the page. We follow STC through his Malta years - a wonderful evocation of Coleridge's chaotic life. The years of tragic opium decline in London are brought to life (I challenge you not to cry) - and yet there are so many triumphs - the marvellous late poems that Holmes has championed in an earlier collection, the seminal lectures on Shakespeare, Coleridge the thinker and radical, Coleridge the father (not a very good one), the years of relative happiness in Highgate where we find Coleridge the guru. Above all is Coleridge the man. Holmes as only the greatest biographers can, brings his subject completely to life and shows us why Coleridge was such a tour de force in the Romantic movement and why Byron called Wordsworth "a fixed star" but Coleridge "a meteor". There is so much to love in this book - it is hard to know what to recommend. If you have never read a biography before, make this your first. If you think you are familiar with the life of STC, this book, so full of new discoveries and insights, will make you reassess the poet. Holmes is clearly enamoured of his subject. It is a book that will make you laugh out loud in places. You will see exactly why Charles Lamb said of his great friend "He is an archangel, damaged."

5 comments about Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart.

1. I am writing my thesis (roughly 80 pages)on Mary Stuart and I have to say that, aside from primary sources, this book was by far the most valuable contribution to my research. Guy's treatment of Mary's life is balanced, detailed, and well contextualized. It's also beautifully written, so that reading it doesn't feel like research at all. I would recommend this book to anyone researching Mary Stuart, but more impressively, to anyone with a simply recreational interest. I wish I could thank John Guy personally. Superb.



2. This artful and unbiased treatment of the Queen of Scots, along with Antonia Frasier's earlier work, is a must for any historial, professional or amateur, who wishes to resolve, refine or at least consider the still debated questions concerning Mary, her ability to rule, her relationships with the scottish nobility, and of course, the dynamic of her relationship with Bothwell and her guilt or innocence of the killing of Lord Darnley. As a retired prosecutor of murder cases and somewhat of an expert on conspiracy, Guy's book provided me with the evidence I would need to review a case against her. There is enough well-researched detail to satisfy the close scrutiny required in reading a work on this already broadly treated enigma.



3. Guy's life of Mary Queen of Scots is written in a "Just the facts, ma'am" spirit that, while not slaking my thirst for a more judgmental approach, did allow me to form my own.
   
   
   
   The predominant tone is one of a knight gallant leaping to Mary's defense, such as in the lengths to which he goes to prove that the documents incriminating Mary in her 2nd husband Darnley's murder were forged, but to his credit he doesn't skirt over the unsavory details of her life, and in fact adds to them. But I must say, it is time for historians to discard the objective approach of the 20th century and let their belief in the supernatural once again reign, as we are once again entering supernatural times ( they all have been, really, but the devil's greatest trick -- you know the rest ).
   
   
   
   The six-foot, redheaded Mary -- too bad Nicole Kidman didn't play this part -- was thought by almost everyone in her time to be a "witch." I'm tired of this kind of accusation being glossed over as a mere superstition of the past, that feminist theory has rendered forever outmoded. Is it perhaps the heathen present and not the religious past which is ignorant? Why did this charge follow her so doggedly?
   
   
   
   It is clear to me, as a Christian who believes in such things, and has some experience with witches myself, that the relationship between Mary and Bothwell was indeed one that can only be described as a Satanic seduction, something that the Scottish nobles and even the populace immediately apprehended when they posted the famous drawing of the mermaid and the hare ( with, as Guy points out, phallic swords surrounding it ) all around Edinburgh. Bothwell was the Colin Farrell of his day, except murderous and unstoppably ambitious for political power, and there is no doubt that the relationship between him and Mary was based entirely on his sexual hold over her. He barely tried to conceal that he didn't even love her.
   
   
   
   It is fascinating to think that one of Catholicism's last, best hopes before the Protestant takeover was defeated by a mesmerizing appendage, but those who can read between the lines will clearly see the evidence of its truth. And what is a witch if not a woman who lets lust drag her and her countrymen into the abyss? Bothwell, who should be remembered as one of the great hommes fatales of history, had absolute power over Mary and within months destroyed her life and her hopes. His involvement in the assassination of Darnley is much less disturbing than an anecdote Guy relates where he literally kills with a single blow one of Mary's loyal retainers -- the old man had dared to wish her good luck on a journey.
   
   
   
   And yet even this didn't stop her from marrying him. Didn't even faze her. She persisted in her "love" for Bothwell even in the face of the unanimous disapproval of her court and of the people, until she was like a cornered rat, alone with her morbid obsession. The once-noble and cultured queen was reduced within months to a frumpy mess, her looks gone, being heckled by peasants and shouting crude obscenities at them from the roof of her castle ( Guy shows how Bothwell's vulgarity infected her ). The story ends with Bothwell and Mary being forcibly separated and pledging their eternal fidelity to each other -- which he instantly broke with a Danish woman, whose dowry he stole! This finally ended his rake's progress.
   
   
   
   What this book made me realize is that the rivalry between Elizabeth and Mary has been entirely trumped-up. They were not rivals; Mary was nothing more than a cautionary tale for Elizabeth, who was much more evil than Mary but also much more shrewd. ( Elizabeth's real rival was the ghost of Isabella of Spain, as she, with the help of her cryptic spies, undid the effects of Isabella's glorious reign. ) The real story here, which hopefully future historians will take up, is the stunningly rapid descent of Mary into blind sexual insanity, and how it forced the last bastion of the Catholic faith in the British isles to deliver herself meekly into the hands of her enemy. Catholics treat Mary almost as a saint due to her supposed piousness in captivity; she should be considered the greatest of traitors. Would history have been entirely different if she never met Bothwell, or is a witch is a witch is a witch?



4. It is harder to imagine a woman history has been kinder to than Mary Queen of Scotts. She is always the tragic women, betrayed by those she loved, and executed by her cruel, vicious, and nefariosu Cousin Queen Elizabeth. Guy does little to change this classic tale, despite the fact that history doesn't match up with it. Mary Queen of Scotts knowingly married her second husband's murderer and assented to the murder of Elizabeth who kept Mary alive, albiet in a very comfortable captivity, at great risk to her own [Elizabeth's] life. I don't think Mary, Queen of Scotts is a totally unsympathetic figure; she loved bad men and was betrayed by them. She was betrayed by her half-brother the earl of Moray, and she died with great courage. That said, she is not a flawless saint, no matter how much Guy wishes to make her one. (Also he makes the errenous assumption that if the the casket letters are fake, which he convincingly shows to be forgeries, Mary is automatically vindicated from the murder of her husband. Something on which the evidence is quite inconclusive.) For a more balanced look at Both Queens, I would reccomend both Jane Dunn and Alison Plowden's duel biography. And please do not say history has not been kind to this woman.



5. I thoroughly enjoyed John Guy's biography of Mary Queen of Scots. The only flaws are that Guy insists that Mary's prayers before death were for a public show of her Catholicism. I don't think so - people about to die don't act that way. Also, he says that when Mary was kidnapped and raped by Bothwell, she must have enjoyed it because she did not cry for help. Sorry, but studies of rape victims have shown that even today women are afraid to go to the police. In those days, a woman was heavily stigmatized when violated against her will. But other than those flaws, this biography is a work of profound scholarship, depicting the details of Mary's daily life as I have never before read anywhere else. Guy also shows that Mary was a clever and even a savvy politician, as clever as Elizabeth her rival, although she fell through treachery and one lost battle. Very sad but very enlightening. Recommended.