No comments about Frances Power Cobbe: Victorian Feminist, Journalist, Reformer (Victorian Literature and Culture Series).

3 comments about Mrs. Jordan's Profession: The Actress and the Prince.

1. Dorothy Jordan has claimed her part in history in two ways: her talent as a stage actress and her connection with Prince William, the future king of England. Looking back, it is hard to say which gave her higher notoriety, or which lead to her fame. This is a sympathetic but realistic portrayal of this very interesting woman. She is presented as a real person as opposed to a legend, with the shortcomings and endearing qualities of a real individual. The character comes through as being ahead of her time, a financially independent, talented, ambitious, yet compassionate, loyal and honest woman who loved her children, and the men in her life. For those who want to find out more about Mrs Jordan, this book is for you.



2. I loved this story. I have been reading books on the Hanoverian dynasty in Britain. This book is one of the few that gives the other side of the story of the Duke of Clarence (William IV). It is also the only book that gives us a little insight into the 10 Fitzclarences (William's children by Dora). William would have been a happy father and husband to Dora if it was for the fact his 2 older brothers would have produced an heir, but once the Princess of Whales died in childbirth, royal duty kicked in and William had to marry and follow the rules, (i.e. Acts of Parliament). Dora was a strong woman and survived hard times in the spot light. I would say leaving here was King William's greatest folly. In my opinion, a love like that would be worth much more than a crown. He had brothers with heirs that could carry on the dynasty (and ultimately did, Duke of Kent's Victoria). Any student of Georgian Britain or the Hanoverian Dynasty, should read this book.



3. Dorothy Jordan has claimed her part in history in two ways: her talent as a stage actress and her connection with Prince William, the future king of England. Looking back, it is hard to say which gave her higher notoriety, or which lead to her fame. This is a sympathetic but realistic potrayal of this very interesting woman. She is presented as a real person as opposed to a legend, with the shortcomings and endearing qualities of a real individual. The character comes through as being ahead of her time, a financially independent, talented, ambitious, yet compassionate, loyal and honest woman who loved her children, and the men in her life. For those who want to find out more about Mrs Jordan, this book is for you...

2 comments about David Livingstone: Mission And Empire.

1. This work, featuring many new and nuanced insights, is a wonderfully written story of a very determined missionary and explorer. As the author so ably describes, our modern knowledge of David Livingstone is heavily influenced by the fact that, in death, he has been made the icon for many causes. His legacy has been put to the service of, for instance, British imperial aspirations. But as the author recounts, Livingstone's complexity defies any neat categorization.

   Livingstone was possessed of a ferocious curiosity. He was born into a life of poverty, but became both a medical doctor and an ordained minister. He fathered a large family from whom, due to his travels, he was often away. Both his physical endurance, and his capacity to withstand pain were prodigious. His respect and admiration for African cultures was incomprehensible to his contemporaries. Witnessing firsthand the depredations of the slave trade, he devised strategies for development that, had they been heeded, provided a chance for leaving African cultures intact.

   Livingstone mapped the unknown interior of Africa. His expeditions were remarkable both in the beauty of the places "discovered", and the grueling physical and consequent emotional demands on the explorers. During Livingstone's final expedition, the American journalist H.M. Stanley so famously "found" Livingstone. The meeting is replete with irony, and the context and effect of this meeting are very movingly described. Very moving, as well, is the story of Livingstone's death in Africa, and the transport, by loyal friends, of his body fifteen hundred miles to the coast.




2. > Andrew Ross' study of the life and work of David Livingstone is a worthy
   > contribution to the literary corpus of this great man. Ross makes
   > accessible the revealing nuances and context of this giant of the 19th
   > century. There is special sensitivity to Livingstone because, like
   > Livingstone, Ross is also a Scot and served as a missionary in Africa.
   > His impressive knowledge of Africa and its history serve the reader
   > well in grappling with both the facts and implications of what
   > Livingstone did. His research is thorough and objective, while his
   > portrayal is winsome and inspiring. This book is necessary for an
   > accurate understanding of Livingstone. Reading it is a delightful
   > experience!

4 comments about Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Lives and Legacies Series).

1. Addison knows that Churchill's life has received almost as many words as Churchill wrote himself, as one of the most prodigous authors of the twentieth century, known and admired by many as the greatest figure of his time, "saving the world" from Nazi Germany, the right man at the right place at the right time.
   
   But Addison is not so sure. Churchill was maddeningly erratic, not only changing political parties twice but also inflaming deep hatred during his long, varied career as a military figure, prison escapee, politician, cabinet member, and prime minister. Much of the peculiarities about Winston we can attribute to his relationship with his parents, an American debutant and a half-crazed father who died young. Lacking their affections, and wanting to make a name for himself, Churchill took on risks and positions with abandon.
   
   Addison has done a thorough study, more remarkable for its brevity when describing a man whose life has been chronicled many times before in thousands of pages. While leading England during World War II, Winston came to symbolize the twentieth century but he was in many ways a man of the nineteenth or even eighteenth century, believing in the Empire and being more of an egoist than an egotist. Yes, he was a racist in today's terms, with his contempt for what we would today call "developing countries" and their peoples, but for his time Churchill was not out of step. He was, at times, indecisive and, yes, out of step with popular feelings. His writings were often efforts to cast himself in the best possible light. This was especially true when he wrote his memoirs of World War II, right after he was thrown from office at his moment of triumph. This cathartic and somewhat self-serving post-war writing process regained him 10 Downing Street, it also left him as the primary arbiter of his reputation from the war -- the leader of the victorious nations gets to write history.
   
   He was a fickle, spoiled, epicurean of sorts who seemed to love a good fight -- even a good war -- if it helped him get ahead and helped England stay ahead or stay alive. Loved or hated, he deserves to be admired for what he got right, not for what he got wrong. Addison is critical yet quite balanced in this treatment of this great yet flawed figure. And for those who want the concise Churchill story, this is it.



2. Paul Addison has written a competent introduction to a life more interesting, in the sense of history, than any other of the twentieth century. His book is enlivened by many vivid quotes from a broad assortment of people who had reason to know Winston Churchill. However, I think the author, in an excessive attempt at balance, bends too far over backward in making use of certain highly negative assessments-- such as one offered by Evelyn Waugh at the time of Churchill's death.
   
   While he may have had feet of clay, his name remains remembered in Westminister Abby--and elsewhere over the globe.



3. 
   I've waited the past two months to receive a copy of this short biography on Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Reading this book does not disappoint.
   
   This short work, though fair and favorable to Sir Winston, also discusses the controversies of his career. Not everyone in Britain was a fan of Churchill, with some disliking him, with others fearing he would ever have any part of the government. In spite of his monumental contributions to the World War II years, some never lost their mistrust nor dislike of the man.
   
   As an American, I see him as the beacon of hope for war-torn Britain. The best possible man to lead the country during those years, an uncrowned king giving the British people the hope and stamina needed to go on, day by day, overcoming all the suffering World War II brought them. Should he not have been the best, surely there existed no one better. When one thinks today of World War II Britain, one must think of Winston Churchill. They have become intertwined and inseparable.
   
   Even from his earliest years, Churchill always felt he was a person of destiny; so was able to equally accept and act in that role. One must wonder what England would have been without him. Prior to the war he was seen as too strident and hawkish, once the war began however his views and demeanor coincided exactly to the needs of the time. Once the war was over, most of the country turned their backs to him at the polls, feeling he was not up to running a tamer, peacetime government.
   
   Being neither British, nor ignoring his earlier government service prior to World War II (he was 65 in 1940 at time of his becoming Prime Minister with many years of government service behind him), I cannot agree with their post war thinking. And as discussed in this slim volume, I agree with the author that the mistrust and distrust of earlier Liberal versus Tory episode was ever overcome. Too many felt they just could not count on, nor place their full trust in this man.
   
   Winston Churchill is my 'cup of tea'. One of the few 20th Century men of both character and leadership. True, he had both great flaws and great abilities as well; and this book fairly shows both.
   
   Recommended reading.
   
   Semper Fi.



4. Though Winston Churchill has never wanted for biographers, over the past few years the publication of brief studies of his life have come into vogue. Written by some of the leading historians of the period - John Keegan, Geoffrey Best, Stuart Ball - they offer an accessible (if condensed) examination of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Paul Addison's book is the latest addition to their ranks, and one that deserves to be ranked as among the best of these efforts.
   
   Addison argues that the heroic status that Churchill enjoys today belies much of his career. Considered an irresponsible genius by his contemporaries, he was a polarizing figure who was never completely trusted by any side of the political divide. Yet as prime minister during the Second World War he went on to become "the embodiment of national unity," a symbol of Britain's determination to defeat Nazi Germany. Addison provides a more nuanced view of Churchill's career, noting his ideological consistency in a politically turbulent age. When war came, the man and the moment were ideally matched; indeed, many of the traits that his opponents deplored - his enthusiasm for war, his advocacy of impossible ideas, even the fact that he was half American - became assets in the conflict and were keys to his successful leadership.
   
   Developed from his entry on Churchill for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Addison succeeds in providing an insightful introduction to the life of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Though hardly a hagiographical account - he freely acknowledges such faults as Churchill's massive egotism - his portrait is a sympathetic one, depicting the prime minister as "a hero with feet of clay." The result is a good read and a great starting point for anyone seeking to learn more about this fascinating figure.

2 comments about William and Catherine Booth: Founders of the Salvation Army (Heroes of the Faith).

1. I was pleased at the way this book chronicles the lives of William and Catherine Booth. What a pair! I mean this man had a very hard life and basically was an indentured servant during his apprenticeship. They both new the meaning of self sacrifice and being our brother's keeper. What an awesome couple. Definitely read this one. It will give you a new perspective on your own life.



2. This book is a must have for anyone in the Salvation Army. You will enjoy the great story of the beginnig of the Salvation Army as you learn about the lives of the William and Catherine Booth. This book touched my heart and I'm sure it will touch yours. I give this book 5/5 stars.

No comments about Slaves' Champion, The.

5 comments about Lennon in America: 1971-1980, Based in Part on the Lost Lennon Diaries.

1. What a piece of garbage! Rarely have I read a book that purported to be "historical" in nature that had so many well-known facts completely wrong. Those who gave this book any more than one star obviously no nothing about the history of The Beatles or of John Lennon. I have read dozens of well-researched books on both subjects, and this is by far the worst of the bunch. I'm not speaking from a like or dislike of Lennon, or even Giuliano's approach (supposedly using Lennon's stolen diary, which I don't believe he used anyway). I'm speaking about his historical inaccuracies. Giuliano has John meeting Paul on June 15, 1956 in his chronology. I don't know where that date came from, but certainly not from the historical record. As all Beatle afficionados know (and Giuliano is supposed to be something of an expert), John met Paul on July 6, 1957. Towards the end of the book, he writes that Paul and Linda visited John and Yoko in John's apartment on March 22, 1978. Many incontrovertible sources will reveal that Paul and Linda were on a boat on the Thames River holding a press conference to discuss the release of their new album, "London Town", eating fish and chips, and having their photographs taken by a slew of photographers from the media on this date. In between, this book is filled with inaccuracy after inaccuracy, unprovable assertions, and flights of fancy. Giuliano even goes so far as to state that Lennon was having dreams of performing fellatio on George Harrison (or was it the other way around?) Where did he get this earth-shattering information? Why, from Lennon himself, who wrote it in his diary. I don't know... I suppose it could be true, but I never heard that "fact" from any other source in the 26 1/2 years that Lennon's been dead. This "biography" is a complete waste of time and money. Guiliano should hang his head in shame for putting photos of himself with Yoko and Sean in the book. He has done the Lennons a great disservice by writing this so-called "historical biography."



2. I bought this book in Chicago when I was travelling around the country. It didn't take long to read and even less time to realize the author was clearly fabricating most of this. I wish I could get my money back. Reads more like an extended National Enquirer article, kept waiting for Aliens to abduct John.



3. I think all anyone needs to know about Geoffrey Guilliano is that this man faked his own death to avoid being chased after all the money he owed.
   And he did it by taking advantage of the 9/11 tragedy where he had messages sent to dubious sources to say he'd been in one of the Twin Towers that day.After which his body was one of many never discovered thus saving any positive sighting of it and an obituary.
   At first he got a heap of sympathy messages on a Beatles website
   until he was rumbled
   Its Reassessment Time here.
   His Harrison book bears the blurb "Guilliano knows more about my life than I do"
   Which is doubtful as Harrison threatened to sue him!
   So he no doubt added that himself
   1 Star is because you can't award lower



4. The author plays fast and loose with basic facts. As others have pointed out, among other things Lennon supposedly had a blow-up with his father at the Magical Mystery Tour premiere in the latest '60s -- which John somehow forgave in 1964. John supposedly had sexual fantasies about Madonna, whose first album came out after John was killed. The author can't even get the spelling of Patti Boyd's name right. This kind of "reporting" calls into question everything in the book. When I read about John's mother's supposed sexual advances to him, the first thing I did was look around for a footnote or other indication of source material, but none was to be found. And of course, the book is unrelentingly vicious to Yoko Ono, but that's to be expected.



5. My review will be brief because I generally agree with the comments made by others who gave this book 1 or 2 stars. The opening chapter (oddly entitled "Prologue") gives you the flavor of what is to come. Clearly the author is on a mission to write the juiciest tabloid version of Lennon's life possible. The first chapter is not a prologue at all, but a description of John's alleged sexual adventures.
   
   There are many things that trouble me about this book. Among others, the author claims to base it in part on tapes made by JOhn and Yoko as well as John's diaries. While some of what he writes rings true, how did he get a hold of these forbidden items? He claims he go the diaries from Harry Nilsson, something Nilsson's web site has contested over and over. How did Harry get these diaries or tapes? Who knows. Clearly the diaries were notes, written in John's notoriously bad handwritting. And abbreviated notes at that. If the author quoted the diaries or tapes verbatim, that would have been much more convincing than interpreting these items. If you have the tapes and diaries in front of you, why not just quote them? Or photocopy pages of the diary and put them in the book for all to see?
   
   As I said, some of it is believable, but parts of it are not, and the author is clearly a man on a nasty mission.

2 comments about The Word of a Prince: A Life of Elizabeth I from Contemporary Documents.

1. I've never read this book before, But someone that has, Could u tell me why in the world it says The World of a *Prince*? Because shes a princess.



2. I read this book in a History class of the Tudor-Stuart period in college. While I found the book interesting, many others did not. The book combines documents by Elizabeth herself, many rare or hard to find and of a personal nature, and secondary source comentaty. The book gives an often unheard naritive of Elizabeth I's childhood, accendancy, and reign.

   One problem that many other students found in my class was the constant personal narritives given by the author. While at times they are quite dramatic and through provoking, they are often biased and pure speculation (yet presented as fact). Some issues and events are taken someone out of context or presented in a slanted view.

   While I would definatly recomend this book to anyone wanting to know more and about Elizabeth I, I must caution the reader to question some of the evidence and speculation given in the book. The reader must constantly be on the look out for things that may be biased. This book does make an excellent read for the amature historian, but like all historical books, do not base all your knowledge on this one work.

No comments about Liberalism and the Social Problem.

5 comments about Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies.

1. You attempt to contribute to the cover up for Edward VIII of England.
   
   He certainly thought it more important to marry a divorced American
   
   than remain King of his country in time of crisis. He also violated the
   
   integrity the Church of England of which he was the official head and
   
   protector.
   
   What about Lord Halifax and George VI in the early going?
   
   What about the Welsh coal miners who were already loosing too many
   
   lives because of an indifferent government and other English citizens
   
   who were about to put their lives and honor on the line to defend England
   
   against Nazi aggression?
   
   
   
   
   Wendell M Kury



2. Martin Allen`s book „Hidden Agenda - How the Duke of Windsor betrayed the Allies" provides us with an interesting look behind the stage on which the beginning of the Second World War was taking shape. Martin Allen describes in considerable detail the interests of the various parties involved in this conflict - the actors, the observers, and the by-standers, and he adroitly shows how some of the players, at times, would switch from one category to the other.

   The lynchpin of the book is a letter, supposedly written in late 1939 by the Duke. Its purpose was to introduce to Hitler the Duke`s messenger, the Franco-American industrial consultant, Charles E. Bedaux who, in those early months and years of the war, was able to travel quite freely from one side of the „Sitzkrieg" front to the other.

   A facsimile of the letter is shown in the book. Obviously, for a mere reader, it is impossible to say whether the letter is genuine or not. The (German!) text of the letter is, however, just ever so slightly off the track with respect to normal German style, grammar, and vocabulary that it may well have been written by a person, such as the Duke, whose command of the language was good, but not perfect. It would have taken an excellent forger to achieve such a convincing degree of (im)perfection.

   The immediate military results of the Duke`s overtures toward Hitler were twofold. They represent, in a way, each party`s ante in the bargain: the Duke`s information on the French defenses allowed the Germans to turn the „sitzkrieg" into a „blitzkrieg" in the summer of 1940, whereas the German contribution was to hold their panzers back when they reached the Channel, thus allowing the British Expeditionary Force to retreat from Dunkerque with acceptable losses.

   At this point, the book argues more or less explicitly, it would have been possible for some sort of peace deal to be reached. However, the Duke`s position at home had been undermined by internal machinations that had led to his resignation and he was unable to realize his ambition which, according to Allen, was to recover his throne through this admittedly risky alliance with Berlin.

   The obvious argument that comes to mind at this point is that any peace with Hitler would have constituted an abandonment of Poland for whose integrity and protection the Allies had, after all, gone to war. We must realize, though, that at the end of September, 1939, when the war in Poland had come to its rapid end, the Germans had occupied only the western half of that country. The eastern half of Poland was, by then, under Soviet domination, because the Soviets had, on 17 September 1939 (when the victory of their German ally was evident) sent in the Red Army to take over the rest - and to hold on to it to the present day.

   This overt act of aggression did not cause a stir in the Allied camp and voids the argument sketched out above. The value of Allen`s book lies in its exposure of the duplicity of the policy of the Allies. Only five years later, the world witnessed and for the most part, welcomed the complete hand-over of Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe to Stalin who, by that time, had become the West`s most valuable ally in the fight for the ideals of freedom and democracy. It took History a mere fifty years and millions of dead to rectify that situation. One wonders if the price that might have had to be paid to Hitler would have been quite as high as that.




3. This book charges that the Duke of Windsor, formerly King Edward VIII, gave Allied military secrets to Germany in a deliberate scheme to help the Nazis against his own country.

   The British establishment, the author says, used Edward's love for Wallis Simpson as a pretext to force his abdication because of his pro-German views. Then, he says, that same establishment used Edward to spy on French military installations for Britain--but that Edward simultaneously passed the secrets along to the Germans through Charles Bedaux, a shadowy character with ties to both Edward and Adolf Hitler.

   The book is built around a handwritten letter, in German, from Edward to Hitler, which the author says his father received years later from Hitler's architect, Albert Speer. The book surmises that Edward gave the letter to Bedaux, who hid it in his hat band, or elsewhere, and then personally delivered it to Hitler.

   On the surface the letter is cryptic. Was Edward really trying to hurt Britain--or help Hitler put him back on the Throne? Was he being solicitous, or devious? If the circumstances surrounding the letter are indeed what the author claims, then this book has a real story to tell.

   Unfortunately, the book's shortcomings as a serious history cast doubt on its conclusions. There is some original research, particularly with respect to the background of Bedaux himself. Most of the text, however, rests either on secondary sources or on no acknowledged source at all. The author does not cite the particular pages of the secondary sources, so it is virtually impossible for readers to evaluate the information for themselves. Worse yet, many highly accusatory and critical passages have no source references whatsoever, leaving frustrated readers to wonder whether the undocumented conversations and events actually happened. The overall tone suggests that the author has let his own animus toward Edward dictate the scholarship, rather than the other way around.

   The author explains that many of the primary source documents have been destroyed, are not available for inspection, or are perhaps even being hidden by the British royal family itself. That, though, is not a license to make critical assumptions that result, essentially, in a charge of treason.

   The letter appears to bear Edward's handwriting, as far as one can tell from the lithographic reproduction in the book. In an appendix the author recounts that a handwriting expert authenticated the letter. Sadly, however, he does not identify the expert, and the glaring absence of the expert's identity further undermines this book's claims.

   Even if the letter is genuine, it does not prove the author's thesis. Edward was not anti-German, and he may well have thought that the Nazis were Europe's best defense against Soviet expansionism. He may also have been careless in his dealings with both Bedaux and Hitler. But that certainly does not mean that Edward would deliberately seek to harm the Empire that he served so long as Prince of Wales, and later as King.

   The overreaching premise of this book makes the story of royal intrigue entertaining, but one should not uncritically accept all of the story.




4. This most biased reflection of Charles Eugene Bedaux demonstrates an underlying bias on the part of the Autoho. Unsubstantiated facts based upon Allen's prejudice are slanderous and if Bedaux were still alive, he would have set the record sttraight and possibly involved many prominent US citizens. Bedaux did much to styme the Naxi operarionf in France and this is totally ignored in this book.



5. This book gets one star simply for its value to take space on a bookshelf! Otherwise, some of the probably accurate conslusions about the Duke of Windsor are rendered suspect by Martin Allen's faulty and obviously ill-researched and biased conclusions regarding Charles Eugene Bedeaux!

   I have studied and researched Bedeaux for several years now. Allen would have done well to talk with the few surviving Frenchmen in and around Tour that knew of Bedeaux's efforts in putting kinks in all Nazi manufacturing ans ship-building production in France under his direction.

   Jim Christy's book, "The Price of Power, The Story of Charles Eugene Bedeaux", more accurately concludes that Bedaux may certainly have courted the Duke for his "star power" of the day and that Bedeaux was NOT a Nazi collaborator but rather worked skillfully to sabotage wartime production in France that could have greatly benefitted the Nazi powers.

   Allen appears more inclined to follow his own "conclusions" that are far from conclusive. It is my opinion that Bedeaux took his own life, probably with some relief by many powerful Americans, and with perhaps aid from his captors. Had he lived and told the entire story, too many powerful US citizens would have become involved.

   Sadly, this flawed tale could have been told better with adequate research and less unproven ideas expressed as fact.

   Find Jim Christy's book for a much better-told tale and much, much more accuracy.