5 comments about Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne (P.S.).

1. This is a nice introduction to Elizabeth. It is easy to read, moves along nicely, interesting and enjoyable to read. Nice color plates, as well.



2. This is one of the most interesting books about Elizabeth I in years. Her actual reign in fairly well documented, but why did she approach issues the way she did (e.g., religious tolerance, possible marriage, etc.)? David Starkey, who frankly confesses that she fascinates him, has found in many diverse sources the threads that made up the adult woman who was queen. His analysis of the events and people who shaped her character and personality is gripping reading.
   
   This book also is an excellent foil to Antonia Fraser's classic biograph of Mary Stuart, Elizabeth's contemporary and Catholic rival for the throne of England (starting with the attempts of her de Guise uncles, when she was a young widow, to teach her sufficient statecraft to rule Scotland). The contrast between the two women, from their personalities to their mindsets to their approaches to governance, is startling to say the least.



3. Elizabeth the struggle for the throne reads like an engrossing suspense novel. Starkey is the perfect literary tour guide for this eloquent biography about a woman's ascension to power. Starkey begins his tale with Elizabeth's birth, giving the reader a grand introduction to Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII. Henry would play an intricate part in shaping Elizabeth's strong willed personality.
   Elizabeth, witnessing Henry's no nonsense approach to courtly conducted would later administer many of his methods since she inherited many of his distinguishing qualities. Of course, opinions very on whether this was a asset or a liability. Many historians would later refer to the Elizabethan era as the golden-age of England.
   What will infatuate most readers is Starkey's exploration and treatment of Mary Tudor (who is my favorite historical figure). His picturesque approach to Mary is delightful. Most English historical literature perceives Mary Tudor as an evil vindictive individual. This is far from the truth. Mary was an indecisive, timid ruler who was unloved. Her husband Prince Philip of Spain along with the Catholic Church, Bishop Gardiner, Cardinal Pole, and Lord William Paget were the ones pulling all the strings behind the throne. Also, Emperor Charles V played a large part in Mary's decision making.
   Insofar as Mary's relationship with Elizabeth was concerned, all was not well, especially when Henry VIII disowned Mary making her a bastard after he annulled his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. This manouevre would later cause envious feeling to proliferate toward Elizabeth, furthermore, religion became a factor since Mary was a loyalist to the Catholic Church.
   This book is chalked full of surprises: the executions of Lady Jane Grey and John Dudley (the Duke of Norththumberland), Sir Thomas Wyatt's Revolt, the Protestant Reformations, Elizabeth's salacious liaison with Thomas Seymour and many more exciting developments that one can't help but mused over. In a nutshell, this was one of the most enjoyable reads I ever had. This book is a pleasure to behold.



4. Excellently written biography. What makes it more attractive is the fact that the author leaves lots of dates behind, a practice rather unusual for historic books. Instead he focuses on the causes that paved the way for her throne. David Starkey boosts the art of bio writing to a literature level. His sentences are so beautifully crafted that you reread some passages anew, e.g. " ...the Spanish King unleashed his ambassador". His descriptions of the old royal castle decors make you feel you're there. His descriptions of royal food make your mouth watering. His descriptions of Elizabeth make you wish you were born at those times. Having read this book I fell in love with the title hero to such an extent that I hung a big replica of her portrait in my room.
   Miros / Poland



5. The author starts this remarkably readable narrative by frankly admitting that Elizabeth I attracted him into an intimate knowledge about her. This enabled him to bring to life all the elements of Elizabeth I's tenuous existence during the critical years from the death of Edward VI in 1553 through the accession of Mary Tudor and then Elizabeth's own accession in 1558, including the ongoing challenges to her authority during her long reign. He gets behind the conventional wisdom by taking into account Elizabeth's real personality, background and drive, including her sense of fairness in the face of what appears to us today as horrendous accusations and excution of persons as traitors and heretics during Henry VIII's and Mary Tudor's reigns respectively. Yet the challenge from Mary Queen of Scots forced Elizabeth into responding oppressively to the rebellion inspired by Mary. Thus, while the author shows her to be a truly great, balanced, forward-looking monarch; he also shows that she could not totally escape being a creature of her age and culture. Overall, she guided the ship of state deftly through the troubled waters of the theological and polictal controversies of her day, and the English-speaking world today is the beneficiary of Elizabeth's remarkable sagacity and vision.

5 comments about The Titled Americans: Three American Sisters and the British Aristocratic World into Which They Married.

1. My title applies to the protagonists of the book as well as the book itself. The three Jerome sisters were certainly fascinating women, though incredibly self-absorbed at the expense of their children. The husbands all come off as cads, which I suppose can excuse some of their excesses. You almost get exhausted reading all the examples of shallowness throughout the generations. There were some eggregious errors by the author (one passage referred to a Tsar of Russia as Nicholas II before Nicholas was even born! The author must have meant his father, Alexander III). It's errors like this that detract from getting into the story. It's entertaining, but not as good as other bios of the time period.



2. The author has done a good job for her first book, her writing style is engaging allowing you to imagine you are witnessing the trails and trumipths of the Jeromne sisters.
   
   However, there was times that I had to consult the family tree (found in preface pages of the book) in order to understand which family members the author was writing about.



3. This work chronicles the rise of one American family in the first half of the 1800s. The father is able to acquire a fortune through the stock market, and the mother is determined to take her three daughters to Europe where they will be able to trade their financial prospects for a European title, coming at the beginning of a series of marriages in which American heiresses were joined to less wealthy but socially advanced British nobility (particularly minor nobility). However, as the fortunes of the Jerome family wax and wane with the unsteady stock market, so do the prospects, marriages, and lives of the three Jerome sisters. Of special interest because one of the sisters (Jennie) is the mother of Winston Churchill.
   
   Quote: "It was all the more important to women of their class to adhere to these standards because they had so little else beyond their social position. Their story thus illuminates what it meant to be a female member of the British aristocracy during its decline, when incomes were falling but lifestyles were slow to follow the downward spiral."
   
   
   While I enjoyed this story and learning about the interesting lives led by the sisters, I also felt that it dragged on for rather longer than it needed to given its subject matter. And I'm a history teacher, so it's not that I automatically think history non-fiction is going to be boring :). However, the research seemed well done (end notes, yay!), and the stories of the lives of the three sisters and their offspring were woven together nicely.



4. Elisabeth Kehoe's "The Titled Americans" is a good examination of the lives and careers of the surviving daughters of American financier Leonard Jerome: Leonie, Clara (originally Clarita), and especially, Jennie, the oldest, and probably best known for being the mother of Winston S. Churchill. Kehoe covers a lot of ground, focusing primarily on the lives of Leonie and her Leslie family and of Clara and her Frewhen family. Unfortunately, as another reviewer has so aptly noted here, we do not really get more than a terse descriptive look at these sisters, their husbands, and children. Without question, Jennie Jerome Churchill (Lady Randolph Churchill) was undoubtedly the most interesting of the three, working tirelessly as a dutiful politican's wife and as an unpaid resident "American Ambassador" to the United Kingdom at a time when relations between Americans and the British were far more cordial, and far less friendly, than they are now. I was struck reading how the lives of all three sisters were in many instances quite similar, having endured either poverty or unhappily married bliss (or in at least one instance both) inspite of their matrimonial alliances to British aristocracy. This slender volume serves mainly at best as a fine overview of the Jerome sisters and of their families; those wishing to read more about them should read the elegant biographies written by family members, most notably those by Winston S. Churchill.



5. Interesting story about these sisters but it is very shallow in that it never gets past the surface. We never know what drives these women and never get a true sense of their personalities. then towards the last third of the book, it becomes more of an itinerary than anything else. All you read is "....then Clare went here, then Jenny went there..." I think this author has promise. Apparently, this is her first book so I am hoping that she learns more writing skills. Lots of incorrect historial information as well. Unless I am missing something, was there someone called "Grand Princess Tsarvena" and "Grand Prince Tsar"? Apparently, the author tells us these 2 people were the future Nicholas II and Alexandra, who, according to the author "..attended his sister Marie's wedding to Queen Victoria's son..." Now, last I read, Marie was the daughter of Alexander II and NOT the sister of Nicholas II. AND, Nicholas II didn't even know Alexandra at this time. This is just one historical error but since this was my first connection with these sisters how can one be assured that they are reading the truth.

5 comments about Diana: Her True Story in Her Own Words.

1. I sort of liked this book more than some of the other biographies I've read before. To be honest before I read this book I have NEVER heard of Princess Diana. While I read this book I felt sympathetic toward her because she had a real hard life after she became involved with the Prince Charles. Most of the sympathy went into the fact that she received pretty much no help from any one except her mother and father but no help whatsoever from the royal family and was expected to know everything she was supposed to. She had bulimia and no experience at all at being royalty and the somewhat rude expectations from the royal position and the responsibilities that came with it. Not only that but the prince that proposed to Diana (the prince that became her husband) was cheating on her with another woman and everyone was trying to hide the fact that he was seeing the other woman. Along with that problem came the fact that her husband cared more about the other woman than Diane even though she was his wife. An example was that when Diana was still engaged to the prince and the paparazzi were following her and the other woman the prince was seeing, Diana was being followed by like 36 paparazzi the other woman was only being followed by 4 people the prince was sympathetic towards the other woman and didn't even care about the hardships Diana was going through.
   So overall I would give the book a good rating since it had a personal interview with Diana and used her own words rather than some facts that could very well be just rumors that were spread.
   S.Brock



2. Saint Therese of Lisieux, The Little Flower wrote that she had prayed to discover her true vocation - and that she had found it: "to be love in the heart of the Church"! A novel by Carson McCullers wears the title: "The Heart is A Lonely Hunter". "The heart" is the location of the reality of our life . . .it is where we really dwell . . . and where God dwells with us.
   
   Princess Diana Spencer was indeed a "lonely hunter" searching for herself and for meaning "in her heart" . . . and she found that meaning in the hearts of countless millions throughout the world -- many who encountered her personally and countless millions who never physically met her but DID meet her soul.
   
   Diana's external beauty simply was a radiation outward and visibly of her real true inner beauty - Melanie (Safka) the folk singer wrote a song titled, "Beautiful People", and while Melanie hadn't envisioned "Diana" who probably had just been born about the time she recorded that song, Diana WAS a "beatiful person".
   
   This book by Andrew Morton comes about as close as we might ever come to hearing the voice of Diana speaking for herself. She presents herself to us as she was: frailties included - but "the flaws" are what mark individuals as unique and as the amazing persons that they are - and the faults simply lend contrast to their perfections and more noble character.
   
   The world cried when Diana died . . . and she left us wondrous memories of a "Camelot" that did exist if but for a fleeting moment . . . and she left us an example of how "love" can exist in the heart of the worldfor any other person in need, whatever their need or hurt and wherever they may live. She was a friend of Mother Terese and Mother Terese was a friend to Diana (Diana was buried with rosaries Mother Teresa gave her) - they lived in two different atmospheres but shared that sense of "human pain".
   
   This volume lets Diana linger with us a while longer . . . and the photographs bring her back once again and remind us of why we all fell under her spell.
   
   And beneath the surface of her image . . . between the lines of her words, we can also find hints as to how we can live a more compassionate and understanding and caring life of "love" ourselves.
   
   Diana is missed . . . and she should be . . . but the world was blessed that she walked among us even for so brief a time. Her smile is now eternal.



3. I first read this book when it came out in 1992. Like everyone else, I was shocked and blamed Prince Charles for the marriage falling apart.
   
   Since she died, there's been a number of credible stories come out that shows Diana to be manipulative, emotionally immature, stubborn and just plain bizarre. While her devotion to her children is unquestionable, and her charity work obviously came right from her heart, there were too many other aspects of her character that were not so glossy.
   
   I mean come on, if your wife was pregnant and threw herself down the stairs to get your attention, would you not seriously question her mental stability? Anyone who can cut themselves with a lemon peeler or smash themselves against a glass cabinet is obviously a few bricks short of a load and in serious need of help. When she did the Panorama interview in 1995, she declared that she felt "betrayed" when her former lover James Hewitt did a tell-all book.............uh, well didn't she do the exact same thing to her husband when she told Andrew Morton all the dirty details of their marriage?
   
   While I despised Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles for their affair, I understand now (a decade later) why he would turn to her: for some NORMALCY in his life.
   
   Be that as it may, the one fasinating thing about Diana is her uncanny ability to predict things. In this book, it tells of her conversations when she was young that she was going to marry someone "in the public eye". She also apparently predicted her father's stroke in 1975. But what was fasinating to read in 1992 was Diana's belief that "while she knows that William will one day be King, she is firm in her belief that she will never become Queen" and "I am performing my duty as Princess of Wales, but I can't see it for much longer than 15 years." As we all know, she was Princess of Wales for 16 years. She made these statements 6 years before she died.....



4. Andrew Morton's book, written in collusion with the late Diana, is a well-written, cleverly confected polemic designed to undo the very people who made her what she was (or, as some in the UK were wont to say, "After all, she's just a royal by injection"). Purportedly the daughter of a famous alcoholic (Lord Spencer), she exhibited all the classic symptoms of an adult child of an alcoholic; low self-esteem, poor boundaries, poor impulse control, chronic depression, a pattern of blaming others for her problems, etc. Of course, one can add on bulemia (from which she suffered before she married her poor husband), and other deep-seated psychiatric disorders. All this is clearly shown in the book to any critical reader. My daughter's godmother, the late Ouida Huxley, used to regale us with stories told her by one of the Queen's closest confidants, who herself witnessed how during the height of her omnipotence Diana would disparage her husband to his face, in front of the family, on his lack of charisma compared to her. She pulled cute pranks like screaming and rolling about on the floor when she didn't get what she wanted (in this particular case, to go to Majorca instead of Balmoral) in a fine impression of a grand mal epileptic seizure, in front of the Queen at a family meeting. For some reason (and it wasn't Camilla, who re-entered the scene only after all efforts at marital repair were exhausted), Diana felt as if the ungrateful royals needed to be paid back for her psychic pain, not realizing that the source of her suffering was in her own head. Andrew Morton's book is the result. It's as one-sided as an autobiography by a narcissist. Morton was either duped, or a willing collaborator in the tearing down of Britain's primary civic institution, the Monarchy. This work (if such it may be called) is about as accurate as Soviet propaganda. It is a fantasy woven from scraps of truth. If Diana had lived, and married the dreadful Dodie Fayed, she would have lost her titular "Princess" title, and reverted to merely the (alleged) daughter of an earl, and would have once again been "Lady Di". Dodie's dad was planning to lugubriously install the two love-birds in the Windsors' old place in the Bois de Boulogne. Eventually, no doubt, she would have tried out one of her famous emotionally wracking "turns" on Dodie (an Egyptian man, mind you) and would have infallibly been kicked out on her coutured posterior. During that time anyone who knew her, even from a distance, could see that Diana's life was on an inexorable and endless downward cycle (remember, even her brother, who so "courageously" dissed his own godmother, the Queen, on international television, refused to have Christmas dinner with D the last year of her life). Andrew Morton's book is a classic celebrity bio. Poor Diana. She was never happy, she would never be happy, and she was going to sow chaos and destruction wherever she went. Death, however, mercifully came for Diana before her life got even worse.



5. If you need to read just ONE book rehardsing Princess Diana... This is THE one you must pick!
   
   You will be delighted with all the details and will admire even more this wonderful person.
   
   A book you MUST have on your shelves!

4 comments about The Lost Cities of the Mayas: The Life, Art, and Discoveries of Frederick Catherwood.

1. A very well done, review of the life of Frederick Catherwood, as well as an excellent description of the mid 19th centuries London, Paris, and New York. The efforts of the first archeological efforts, and how were the must important archeological discoveries at that time. With the beautyful work and potraits of Catherwood
   
   Excellent



2. Fans of Stephens and Catherwood should very much enjoy this volume. Catherwood is neither featured - nor ignored - in Stephens' "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan" set - their travels together being the source of most of the included drawings. This book, however, focuses not only on Catherwood's intriguing artwork, but reveals a good deal about the life of the man himself. Especially considering the price, this book is not only a must for those interested in the Mayan civilization, but also for the story of one of the first white men to discover and document this great culture for the rest of the world.



3. I have read all of John Loyd Stevens books and this is an excellent addition to my library. I would say this book is a must for all you amature Mayanists. Many times I have wished I could tag along with the great adventurers, Stevens and Catherwood, this is the next best thing! I also recomend all of John Loyd Stevens work. You might also check out "A Tourist in the Yucatan" A fun thriller, adventure set in the Yucatan.



4. In reading the The Lost Cities of the Mayas : The Life, Art, and Discoveries of Frederick Catherwood by Fabio Bourbon, one must first take in and enjoy the full folio size color reproductions of Catherwood's engravings and drawings. The vast aray of sumptous images and the clear and concise text that takes you on an adventure through the life of Frederick Catherwood, the first real Indiana Jones is a joy to read and imagine! Oh to have lived in the 19th c. and been on the first real archaeological journey through mexico and central america, documenting the opening up of an ancient civilization to the world. A must for the adventure reader and explorer.

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.

5 comments about Robert the Bruce: King of Scots.

1. An interesting read, but you had better like history. No glamour here, just fact telling. I was struck by the ongoing hatred for the Scots on the part of Edward I and Edward II. Bruce gets the last laugh.



2. Scott's book is a biographical and chronological account of Robert the Bruce's accomplishments. It is written to be read, as well as studied and is quite well done from that point of view, forming a coherent narrative, or story, if you like, detailing the life of the King of Scots.
   
   An interesting biography.



3. This is a great biography of Robert the Bruce. Ronald McNair Scott gives a nice full and fleshed out story of Robert the Bruce and his rise to throne of Scotland. Mr. Scott does a great job following Bruce through his Grandfather and Father's initial competition and ultimately his own attempt for the Throne after the deaths of King Alexander and his last remaining heir. Like most noble families in Scotland of the time they had land and family links to England. The Bruce, Balliol, and Comyn families all dynastic ties and claims to the throne but in the end the Bruce family won out. Mr. Scott does uses well known sources for his biography like Barbour, Fordun and Barrow. Of course they glorify all that Bruce does and spends minimal time on his faults. Mr Scott gives us a general bio that is great for the novice to Scottish history and those reading their first book on Robert. There is a lot of personal story here with some supposed quotes to help you feel you are with Bruce when he knights Wallace, accepts the Guardianship, or when he murders his primary rival John Comyn and claims the throne or when he wins his great victory against the English at Bannockburn. But Mr. Scott doesn't stop there. We see him continue to firm up Scotland's independence against Edward I, II and finally III. We get a vivid view of his great Lieutenants, James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. Bruce finally sees peace in "old age" at 55 and dies with a son and grandson to succeed him. But in the end he was a man with all the faults ordinary man and for all he gained he equally paid a price in family, pain and life. After his death the English rise again and his heirs continue the struggle. But that is another story for another book. Robert the Bruce, King of Scots by Ronald M. Scott is the life of the Bruce as history remembers him today.



4. Scott's "Robert The Bruce" is a truly enjoyable and fascinating book. One is shown the growth of the playboy Lord of Annandale to the courageous, self-sacrificing warrior king who risks everything to lead his people to freedom. A chunk of history I was not too familiar with, Scott fills in the gaps and describes the situations and major characters in an engaging manner. Highly recommended!



5. This is one of the most well written books on Scottish history that I have had the pleasure to come across. Its thoroughly gripping whereas other books about this time period have positvely made my eyes glaze over.
   It takes a deeper look at the politics and war of the time and introduces you to Bruce's fascinating followers James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. This book is a must for those interested in history.

2 comments about Aubrey's Brief Lives (Nonpareil Books, No 77) (Nonpareil Books, No 77).

1. Lives of the rich and famous recorded a time when there were no libel laws meant that even the dirt that wasnt fit to print could be disseminated, whether true or not. It still makes fascinating reading.



2. "Brief Lives" has always been a delight, but it was Oliver Lawson Dick's scholarly editing that revealed Aubrey's genius. And Lawson Dick's Introduction, "The Life and Times of John Aubrey", is a miracle of synthesis and compression: certainly one of the finest biographical essays ever written. This Nonpareil Books edition is sumptuous - a joy to read in these days cheap, quickly produced paperbacks.

5 comments about Churchill.

1. This is too long - all biographers should read and learn from Lytton Strachey.
   
   But Churchill's life was so over the top that its nevertheless an enjoyable read; more so with two provisos:
   
   1. You have to be at least constructively disposed to Winston. Better still if you downright adore him, as Roy plainly does.
   
   2. The most lovingly recounted incidents are those that took place in and around parliamentary life, the life that Roy Jenkins himself knew best. Its very, very well told, but if you didn't happen to be an MP yourself you might find it a little too detailed, in the sense that what others might consider to be the main story seems to be lost sight of, sometimes.



2. For several years I have wanted to read a biography on Churchill. This past summer I finally broke down and purchased the 900+ page book written by Roy Jenkins.
   
   It has only taken six months to finish it. True, I had a dissertation to write and exams to study for. But regardless the book was slow going.
   
   The author is a politician and a writer - much like Churchill. Consequently, Jenkins focuses the book on the intricacies of Churchill's political and journalistic careers. Fair enough.
   
   Churchill's political life and to a lesser extent his various literary endeavors are key to understanding Britain's greatest prime minister. But the details, though interesting, slowly wear down the resolve of the reader.
   
   For example, the beginning and ending of the book flows well as Churchill's family heritage and retirement are explored; in other words, the parts of Churchill's life which are the least political and literary.
   
   Yet by the time we reach his parliamentary career and the two world wars the book descends into minute detail. Minute details about his toast filled summits with Stalin - interesting. Minute details about his administration of the Admiralty - not so much.
   
   Further, he dedicates a surprisingly small amount of space to some very important events - such as the Battle of Britain.
   
   Yet, to be fair, Jenkins provides an excellent overview of Churchill's life. It is also inevitable that certain areas of interest to the reader will not coincide with that of the author.
   
   Indeed, the biographer's experience in British politics provides rare insights: the great PM's great ambition was getting power, using power and retaining power. So, the way Jenkins skillfully dissects and interprets Churchill's various power struggles makes the book worth reading.
   
   Summary: The book is a great introduction to Churchill, with a special focus on his political and literary careers. Yet the combination of the books length and the author's devotion to great detail could prove fatal to the unmotivated.
   
   I would recommend the book to anyone interested in 20th century history, modern British history and of course Churchill. But I would recommend that the reader take long breaks between each of the six sections.



3. Think Robert Kosowsky's review is pretty much on the mark.
   
   Historical events are not presented except in relation to timing and political positioning by Churchill and others. For example, if you don't know about the Dardenelles operation of WW1, this book will not help you. Despite the final line of the book, this is not uncritical of Churchill and at times makes him appear to be motivated by politics as much as anything else (the author was a MP and in the Cabinet so was a political animal too). This does not ring entirely false as it makes it easier to understand his switching of political parties. And this makes it a good counter to Churchill's own books which are at times clearly self-serving.



4. This was a fine biography on Churchill. At its heart, this book is a comprehensive political summary of one of the world's best politicians. Jenkins does a great job of surrounding the moment with context and analysis. His mastery of British politics is unreal.
   
   With all that said, the book did have a few flaws. First, it was hard to grasp the ins and outs of the British political process which Jenkins discusses at great lengths (this could be my fault as I am an American). Second, there was not enough character development. Jenkins references countless people, but does not take the time to highlight, or bring about, who ultimately has a major role. To this end, I feel there was a certain extent of "name-dropping" in the tome. At times, this made the book harder to navigate through with ease. Finally, I don't know French or Afrikaans, or Latin. So those phrases in foreign languages fell upon deaf ears (or perhaps blind eyes is the more appropriate description).
   
   Overall, a great book. I enjoyed Jenkins mastery of the subject matter, and his writing is fantastic. I have not read other Churchill bios before, but would certainly recommend this to a history buff.



5. This biography is extremely interesting but also uneven. Roy Jenkins was a major British political figure himself, sitting in both the House of Commons and then later in the House of Lords as the Baron Jenkins of Hillhead of Pontypool in the County of Gwent. He was member of the Labour Party, and entered Parliament towards the end of Chruchill's career. He was a member of the Cabinet, having served as Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position Churchill once held, and came close to becoming Prime Minister himself. As a result, he certainly has a unique background and exceptionally rare expertise among Churchill biographers. In fact, the best parts of this book are when Lord Jenkins relates his own experiences to those of Churchill.
   
   Jenkins also has some literary talent, having won the Whitbread Prize for his biography of William Gladstone, the legendary nineteenth century Prime Minister. This British book award is roughly equal to the Pulitzer Prize here in the United States.
   
   The biography Jenkins produced is an easy read. He was clearly writing with an American audience in mind and explains some of the less obvious British political terms or how an individual with a title of nobility could be a member of the House of Commons. He also treats his subject with respect, despite their political differences.
   
   That said, this book has a number of problems. The coverage Jenkins provides focuses primarily on Churchill's political career. Discussion of his personal life is there, but it is rather limited. His coverage of foreign policy and matters of strategy is adequate but only adequate. His explanation of some subjects is more shallow than Sir Martin Gilbert's one volume biography. The events surrounding the dukedom that Queen Elizabeth II offered Churchill, but which he eventually turned down, comes to mind immediately. Jenkins is also slipshod in his use of facts and quotes. I am writing a book in which Churchill is a central figure and I saw a number of good quotes that I thought would make my study a little more interesting. After consulting the original sources, I discovered that Jenkins had gotten it wrong. This misquoting happened time and time again.
   
   So in short, you won't go wrong reading this biography but there are better Churchill books out there.

4 comments about The Duchess of Windsor: The Secret Life.

1. I ordered it without realizing this is the exact same biography on the Duchess of Windsor I read about ten years ago but the book seems to have been so updated with new facts it really is worth buying the newer version. She really was a tenacious and riveting woman...no wonder the King left his throne for her. I would have done the same. I find the authors writing to be very unbiased...he does not seem to approve of the politics or the activities of the Duke and Duchess very much, but he gives a very balanced presentation of the facts. Like most people born after world war 2, anyone who supported the Nazi's was automatically evil in my mind but this book caused me to reconsider such a snap judgement. The arguments presented for why so muchof the European elite and American elite supported Hitler are very sound. Fascism was just another right wing philosophy...most of the royals and aristocrats who believed in Hitler were not interested in committing genocide. Hitler went off on the rails on his own in that aspect.
   
   In addition to being insightful and gossipy, this book made me revise some of my own opinions.



2. How History portrays Edward V111 and Mrs Simpson will probably vary somewhat - but this book from Charles Higham is an excellent starting point for history buffs.
   With the passing of time, more and documents are being made available for perusal from a wide range of sources. The Governments of Britain,Germany, Austria and Italy for starters.
   Then add Buckingham Palace letters and documents,and the views of FDR and the Whitehouse staff, Winston Churchill,Hitler et al.
   The level of research can make or break a biography and this one succeeds because of Higham's thoroughness.
   It has always been clear to me that the Duchess had no idea what she was embarking on when she became involved with Prince Edward.
   She was vilified,loathed, shut off from the Royal family.
   At various times during her life she experienced real despair and
   depression.
   Their lives became empty and meaningless - just endless rounds of entertaining and being entertained.
   Many of the upper class in England were Nazi sympathisers, and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were no exception.
   It was this allegiance that was the root cause of all their problems, as British and American spys kept abreast of their activities,their friendships and of course the notoriety they received when visiting Germany did not go unnoticed.
   It was because of this concern they were in effect banished to
   the Bahamas and had their requests to travel abroad refused or at least severely curtailed.
   The Duke seemed to forget the promises he made when he abdicated. He was born to be King and the reality of NOT being King was something he never managed to adjust to. He thought that he and Wallis would return to England to live but his support of Germany and plotting with the Germans to again become King should Britain lose the war, was well known to George V1 and to Churchill, and thus a return to his homeland became an impossibility.
   The most revealing access to the character of the Duchess of Windsor were in her letters to her Aunt Bessie. On one occasion she was complaining bitterly about the Bahamas, and the house etc, never once mentioning the war and the hard times people were experiencing.
   On another occasion a visiting British friend mentioned the London bombings, loss of life etc and the Duchess' response was along the lines of why should she care, the British had made her life hell and she would never forgive them etc.
   Interestingly enough, Wallis was regarded as a spy of long standing, and her later annual trips to America were viewed with alarm by the US government and she was constantly under surveillance.
   Both the Windsors spoke fluent German and yet despite living in France for many years,they knew only a few words of French.
   This book shows Wallis as a woman of expensive tastes,very chic
   beautifully groomed, and a fine hostess of great taste and style.
   Many who knew them well noted that the Duke was besotted by her
   but she less so with him. Then again, when his final illness struck him down, the Duchess of Windsor was there for the Duke until the last.



3. This book came out about 12 years ago and it was presented in a beautiful hardcover jacket.I read it as a novel and it fascinated me.The writing and the pictures are great.The story on the other hand is about this unpleasant and ugly woman, who stole the heart of a king.Mr. Higham wrote it beautifully,unfortunately she was not a very likeable person.Whether some of the stories are true or not, we shall never know. Like the duke running around in diapers....Read it if you are interested in British History.Sadly Wallis is in it.The Duke on the other hand gave an impression of being somebody without character, extremely weak,and a puppet in Simpson's hands.



4. "The Duchess of Windsor: The Secret Life" purports to shed scandalous light on the life and times of Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson Windsor. Higham paints the Duchess as a sometime spy, a Nazi-sympathizing party girl, and the dominating figure in the life of her weak, dim husband. At the same time, he touts her vaunted personal charm, fashionable elegance, and supposed genuine affection for the man who surrendered his throne to marry her.

   Unfortunately, the author's slapdash writing (replete with repetitive facts and anecdotes and endlessly laced with self-congratulatory details of his mostly unrevealing research) mean that "The Secret Life" doesn't even read well as mindless escapism. Higham's great revelations -- that the Duchess faked some details of her life as a military wife in China, and that the Windsors' contacts with various Fascist sympathizers were more substantial than they themselves were willing to reveal -- are hardly surprising in the context of a life devoted almost entirely to self-gratification and hedonistic consumption.

   "The Secret Life" fails to convince the reader of anything except the almost overwhelming mediocrity of its subject, and by extension her hapless consort. Nothing fades faster than news of yesterday's parties; much the same is true of the once glittering and romantic legend of the Duchess of Windsor.

3 comments about Queen Victoria (British History in Perspective).

1. When you think of Queen Victoria, sometimes you visulize a cold and distant monarch. This book looks into to life of a very young queen and how her impact influenced a 3 generations. It will help the reader understand the English family and monarchy. Paced well and very enjoyable. It will be time well spent. Donna Pitcock



2. Written by a Professor Emeritus of History of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Queen Victoria is an engaging expose of both the private and public life of the princess who inherited Britain's throne as a teenager and became the strong guiding figure and symbolic head of the largest empire in the world. Drawing upon past studies and research as well as Victoria's own writings to illuminate her not only as a ruler, but as a human being gripped by concerns ranging from gender roles and religion to political machinations and the state of Ireland. An excellently researched and presented portrayal of one of the strongest and most influential women of history.



3. Queen Victoria has more biographies written about her than any woman born after 1800. This biography takes note of the work done in the past and tries to fill in where the author thinks previous works have been lacking. She is a paradoxical monarch who is largely misunderstood. Becoming Queen in 1837 at the tender age of 18, her 64 year reign would span one of the greatest periods of cultural evolution in history. Europe was also unusually peaceful during this period. A shrewed politian, Victoria was the last British monarch to wield great authority. To help explain the "Victorian" zietgiest, a large portion is devoted to the relationship between Victoria and her Husband, Prince Albert. This book's greatest weakness is it's greatest asset: it is short (many other biographies are published in large volumes). At the expence of the druging details of history, he provides a biography that is both interesting and manageable. In the author's own words, he aims to "whet the readers appitite for more and to alert that same reader to the books and articles in which additional historical nourishment may be found." (p.13) A great book, an easy read; 4.5 out of 5 stars.