3 comments about Crowning Glory: American Wives of Princes And Dukes.

1. I have to agree with the reviewer, who said "paragraphs and paragraphs" of... Yes, indeed, this book is paragraphs of tittle-tattle. From Dorothy Adriance to Helena Zimmermann, pages that read as follows:
   
   "(American heiress) Miss Mary X married the Duke of K, whose mother, the American Anne Y, (see her entry on Page 135) was the first wife of the Count of Z, whose sister Maria married the Prince of -- , who lost her inheritance through gambling at Monte Carlo, after which they divorced, and Maria married the Russian Grand Duke ..."
   
   And so on, and so on. I made up that paragraph above, but I'm not really exaggerating -- this is the way this author writes.
   
   There's no insight into why these ladies made these choices (why, oh why did heiresses such as Doris Duke and particularly Barbara Hutton marry so many Euro-trashbags?? What was the attraction to these losers, who treated them, and their many other wives, so badly?)
   
   I was very disappointed in this book. If you want a simple A through Z compilation of names and brief, uninteresting histories and a few nice photographs, this is the book you want, but if you want something with a little more depth, then avoid this book, and purchase "To Marry an English Lord", by Gail MacColl, or, "In a Gilded Cage: From Heiress to Duchess" by Marian Fowler, either of which is SO much more insightful and detailed.



2. good facts about americans who marry into royal ,with great pictures,juicey goosip, but not put together very well.i really wanted to now about certain royals but they other really bore me.



3. Wonderful source of information, but I wonder why the author didn't pull it all together. Paragraph after paragraph of names, dates, locations, some juciy tidbits... but no real flow to it all. Tons of information, obviously well researched, but poorly executed.

5 comments about Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England's Tragic Queen.

1. Anne Boleyn (1501-1536) was the second of the notorious Henry VIII's wives. She was the first of his wives to be beheaded (Katherine Howard was the second and final wife to die in this manner). Anne was the first crowned Queen of England to die by the executioner's sharp blade as a public spectacle, Her often told story is retold by the late Joanna Denny. Denny published this book in 2004.
   Henry VIII became infatuated by the seductive, highly intelligent and multilingual Anne as his marriage to the dour Catherine of Aragon turned sour. Anne refused to give in to the old king's sexual desires until she had a wedding ring on her pert finger. Henry divorced Catherine claiming she had engaged in sexual intercourse with his older brother the late Arthur Prince of Wales. Henry believed this sin was based on the statement in Leviticus that it was evil to wed the spouse of a deceased brother. Henry believed this was God's curse on his inability to sire a male heir to the throne. He did not want Mary his female child by Catherine of Aragon to sit on the throne. Mary was a devoted Roman Catholic as was her mother. Henry did not want England to become a part of the Holy Roman Empire. As a result of Henry's marriage to Anne the English national church was established and the tie with Rome broken. Anne was an evangelical Protestant whose downfall was engineered by Henry's Lord Chancellor the evil Thomas Cromwell. Anne was accused of adultery with her own brother and several other young bucks at court. She died in 1536 but not before giving birth to Elizabeth I who would reign following the deaths of her half sister Mary and half brother Edward VI. Elizabeth would become one of the greatest rulers in British history.
   What are the problems with Denny's biography of Anne?
   a. She is an advocate of Anne who in her eyes can do no wrong. This is a viewpoint contrary to the assessment of many other scholars who saw Anne as a schemer seeking power for herself, her family and her faith.
   b. The Roman Catholics are all portrayed as bad. Denny has bad things to see about Thomas More who was executed when he refused to agree to the wedding of Henry and Anne. She did prove to me that More was a bigot who sought the death of as many heretics to Roman Catholicism as possible.
   c. Her style is dry reminding one of a textbook account.
   The book can be read but the biases of the author need to be noted. I did learn things I didn't know about this well documented tragic tale of love and death and betrayal in Tudor England.



2. After reading "The Other Boleyn Girl," I wanted to learn more on Anne. Somehow I had reached twenty-five years old without knowing much on Tudor history. This book happened to be on sale here on Amazon, and I bought it. After reading many fiction and non-fiction stories of Queen Anne, I still go back to this book.
   
   It explores every aspect of her life, from before her birth to after her death. It includes many pictures. It is a little heavy to read all in one sitting, and I usually just take in a couple chunks at a time.
   
   Many of the other reviewers hated it for opposing the "facts" that have been known about Anne. Denny does a wonderful job of stating how Anne was most likely tarnished after her death, leading to the many negative things still being written on her. The truth is, we will never the all the facts about Anne, or anything in history, as we were not there. Something that happened yesterday could be told from a friend, and you would get their point of view, as it is told from a person.
   
   What Denny does is give other possible explanations of Anne's life. This book is not for those that have an opinion of Anne as a whore who destroyed England and who only wish to remember her that way. If you have an open mind about events we will never know the whole truth about anyways, pick up this book.



3. Having read many biographies and histories of the Tudor period I was shocked to read this book. The author makes claims that have no basis in history and which are totally based on supposition. It seeks to highlight Anne Boleyn and bash the other queens of King Henry VIII. Highly biased, don't waste you time reading it.



4. I don't usually write reviews of books, but I frankly feel forced to after reading the large number of 1- and 2-star reviews here that accuse this book of an anti-Catholic bias. In a biographical book which purports to present some basic historical facts, I can hardly believe that noting that certain Catholic bishops burned English copies of the Bible (believing Latin to be the only true translation) and that certain notable popes and priests within the social sphere of Henry VIII had openly illegitimate children equates to an anti-Catholic bias! Historical facts are what they are and for us to insist on the suppression or rewriting of those facts in order to satisfy our own modern prejudices is intellectual dishonesty.
   
   I think we can *all* agree that every religious leaning has always had examples of poor representatives, and that these representatives do not necessarily speak for the religion at large. That some of the poor representatives of the Catholic religion were extremely influential at the time of Anne Boleyn's rise and fall, and that Denny tells their story as a larger part of the Boleyn narrative, does not mean that Denny hates Catholics or the Catholic religion.
   
   As for the other falsehoods presented in the poor reviews here:
   
   1. National Portrait Gallery painting of Anne Boleyn is NOT called an original portrait, as one reviewer claims. Denny's own words on the subject are, "Although no contemporary portrait of Anne Boleyn has survived, this does not mean that none was ever painted...The National Gallery is a copy from some lost original recreated later in the century by an unknown artist." (p. 18-19). I have no idea why the reviewer felt the need to point of that the painting is a copy when Denny did so already.
   
   2. Social history may seem like "gossip" to one reviewer, but some readers prefer hearing about the personal lives of political figures to the dry names, dates, and documents approach so many of us are fed in school. If, as one reviewer claims, it is "gossip" to read that More enjoyed personal flaggellation from his youngest daughter, I suggest that such details bring personality to the story. We will differ on this point.
   
   3. For the reviewers that claim that Denny does not treat Catherine with anything but contempt, I disagree. Denny's portrait of the young queen is very sympathetic, painting a very real portrait of her tenable position as widow. She states that Catherine was understandably outraged at being reduced to a position of "whore" at the attempts to annul her marriage, and her description of Catherine's plea to her nephew to save her marriage (and Henry's outrage at the ploy) show Catherine to be full of verve and determination. If Denny was attempting to make the reader dislike Catherine, the attempt was certainly lost on me.
   
   4. Denny does NOT liken Tudor headdresses to burkhas. The only references to burkhas in the entire book are in her introduction to Juan Luis Vives, a tutor for Princess Mary. She quotes Vives oen writings, "'A woman that thinketh alone, thinketh evil,' declared Vives, beliving that a woman should remain at home, out of sight of men...If it was ever necessary to leave the house at all, then she should be covered from head to foot, with 'scarcely an eye open to see the way', after the Islamic manner then found in Spain." (p. 39) This attitude is shown in marked CONTRAST to the English society which allowed royal women to display themselves freely in court, to speak openly to men, and to hold positions of relative power. The egregious accusation by one reviewer that Denny suggests otherwise is completely false.
   
   ....and so on. I do not honestly understand why so many of the reviews here paint this book in such a poor light, but with so few details to hang their review on. I further do not understand why so many of the reviewers seem to be ignorant of Denny's own words. Either I am reading a different edition (or indeed a differnt book!) than they, or they have reasons of their own for obscuring Denny's prose.
   
   As for me, I will admit that this is not the best book I've ever read, but it is certainly very engaging and interesting. The historical figures are treated with respect and with careful detail, and no one is "lost in the narrative" as with so many historical biographies. I enjoyed reading it almost as much as I enjoyed Catherine (Troyat). I cannot, I'm afraid, speak to how well Denny lines up with history, but I can (and hopefully have) speak to how well Denny lines up with the Amazon reviews.
   
   Good reading!



5. This is one of the worst biographies I have ever read, and believe me, I have read many. It is poorly written, sounds like some 13-year-old thinks Anne Boleyn is the coolest thing ever and, like, everyone else is, like, WRONG!!! To Denny, everyone criticizing Boleyn is either misinformed or wasn't there or some other lame excuse. I am hardly against Anne Boleyn and I do think she has been much maligned but come on, Ms. Denny, let's attempt at least the pretense of doing proper research, shall we?

5 comments about William Wallace.

1. A fine collection of pretty much everything known about the historical Sir William Wallace, organized like a biography. I would recommend this book for someone who, like me, loves to read about and research the history of their Scottish ancestors, or who is seeking to read about the real man behind 'Braveheart'.



2. The one book (through Fisher) that sifts through the myths and facts about this Scottish hero.
   
   As a student of Scottish history, I would reccomend this well written book to any serious follower of Scottish history.



3. This goes good with the other book that I have on him William Wallace: Guardiian of Scotland.
   very helpful and interesting.



4. This book was a laborious read, as most works of history are. But the information didn't come as a bombardment, it came in morsels amidst a story that the reader wants to know. It is widely believed this is the definitive depiction of Wallace, and it is clear why, it is not solely about the man himself, but about the political climate and the players and the men in power around him.
   
   One will come away with eyes opened, and will understand the enigma that is William Wallace a little better. It is a book without a life of it's own, but it does a great justice to Wallace's.



5. With someone with little background in medieval history this book was well over my head. It felt as if the author assumed the reader to have a basic background on the subject. I do not and was hoping to build one with this book. Obviously I was wrong.

2 comments about A Brief History of British Kings and Queens: British Royal History from Alfred the Great to the Present (Brief History, The).

1. This author assumes that the reader lives in the UK and you happen to know where all the regions are located (I had to keep glancing at the maps). The interesting thing though is that he covers all monarchs from like 100 BC and all regions, but I ended up just skipping all those parts as I couldn't pronounce the names or the places (especially the welsh names how the heck to do you say "ap" or is this an abbreviation for something?). Also he covers each one so quickly you can't even get the chronology straight in your head. The book does have good geneological and chronological tables though. "Brief" is exactly information the book gives.



2. With individual portraits of all the kings of Britain, no one could accuse this of incompleteness, but the solemn tone and lengthy paragraphs make for a rather dry read.
   
   Billed as from "Alfred the Great to the Present" it begins long before Alfred, with overviews of the Celts, the Roman Occupation, and the Dark Ages. Ashley's organising principle, unity versus disunity within Britain, results in some confusing arrangement of material. For example, in the first Section, Kingdom Against Kingdom: Early Britain: after "The House of Normandy 1066-1154" he backtracks several hundred years to the Kingdoms of Wales (500-1240) and Scotland (850-1165). Then the narrative resumes in 1154 with The House of Anjou.

   This mine of information, though daunting at first glance, covers monarchs' appearance, character, consorts, political, social, religious and cultural history. Among 100 pages of appendices are lists of Roman emperors and governors, kings of British provinces, royal consorts, family trees. The massive bibliography, handy for historic royal watchers, precedes the index.

   You would probably want something more snappy and anecdotal on your shelf as well as this. However it's worth investing in as a reference source.

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

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



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



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



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



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

2 comments about Journals and Letters: Burney, Frances (Penguin Classics).

1. Frances Burney was in her day one of the most successful novelists in England and in later years Jane Austen was to be one of her fans. I haven't read her novels but on the basis of these letters and journals I have certainly become interested.

   This book contains extracts from her letters and diaries stretching from 1768 to 1839, from childhood to old age. Her experiences in that time are very well summarised in the review above. I think that her experience as a novelist does show through in these letters which actually do read like scenes from a novel. Some are comic such as a humourous conversation between her friend George Cambridge and an Italian singer comparing the merits of their countries. Or the party attended by the Russian Prince Orlov who when showing off a valuable jewel which impresses the English ladies present, he asks them if they want anything else they "might strip him entirely". Other scenes are very dramatic such as her near drowning at Ilfracombe or her letters about the illness of King George III (in whose court she served at the time). There are also her various experiences in France and Belgium where she followed her husband who was a French aristocrat.

   Another thing which makes these letters read like a novel is her ability at characterisation. This is especially clear in the cases of her friend Dr Samuel Johnson and her employer King George III. She records conversations she had with them so that we get a very good picture of what they were like as people. Though friends with Johnson she does not hide his tendency to sometimes be an argumentative bully or his strange mannerisms.

   So overall these are a wonderful picture of what life was actually like in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Penguin edition has a comment on the back comparing this book to the diaries of Samuel Pepys and I fully agree.




2. I was drawn to read this book by falling in love with a portrait of the author. She had a serenely pleasant face that radiated calm and good sense, and suddenly I wanted to know more about her. When I discovered that her diaries and letters cut a broad swath from 1778 to 1838, I was hooked.

   Here is a woman who was an intimate of Dr Johnson, James Boswell, Joshua Reynolds, the Thrales, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the Bluestockings, George III and Queen Charlotte -- to name just a few. She was the first woman novelist who did not die in penury (like Aphra Behn and Charlotte Lennox): Her EVELINA, CECILIA, CAMILLA, and THE WANDERER are still readily available after more than 200 years. For five years, Miss Burney served as wardrobe maid for Queen Charlotte until illness forced her to resign. Her descriptions of the court of George III show the monarch at the beginnings of the madness that later debilitated him and contain some of her best prose.

   By then, the French Revolution was in full swing, and scores of French nobility made their way to safety in England. When she met General d'Arblay, adjutant to the exiled Marquis de Lafayette, it was love at first sight for this 40-year-old woman who had never been married. Despite the opposition of her father, Fanny married d'Arblay and lived happily with him until his death more than 20 years later. Sadly, she also outlived her son from this marriage.

   Fanny followed her husband to France during the Consulate and met the rising young Napoleon, Talleyrand, Louis XVIII (during Napoleon's exile at Elba), and other notables. She succeeded in raising a family near Paris despite the fact that, for a good part of that time, France was at war with England. At Waterloo, she helped by helping to create bandages for the wounded.

   This is a book to read slowly and savor the feeling of another time. Fanny outlived the 18th Century "Age of Reason" and saw the birth of Romanticism and the beginning of the reign of Queen Victoria. I would like to have known her. Reading her diaries, I feel I do; and I feel even more drawn to her than before.

5 comments about Reach for the Sky: The Story of Douglas Bader, Legless Ace of the Battle of Britain (Bluejacket Books).

1. I ordered this book for myself after having read a borrowed original first edition hard cover from a friend.
   The story is wonderful and inspiring, and I wanted to own this book. This soft cover reissue version is O.K.,
   but the photo reproductions in it are shamefully bad. I'll continue to search for an original copy ...



2. I read this book in middle school YEARS ago, well, ok, I wore this book out in middle school. When I saw it on Amazon I had to get it! What an amazing, inspirational story. Anyone with an interest in flying or history will find this a fantastic read!



3. An excellent and accurate story of a historical figure, Douglas Bader. It was interesting to read and thoroughly enjoyable.



4. I read this book when I was 9 yrs. old and now that I read it again I think that this is one of those books that I will keep and read over and over.
   This is a riveting story that makes you feel like you are there experiencing the events yourself.



5. This was one of the first war ace biographies I've ever read, back when I was fourteen.
   
   It's a pleasure to see it published again, to replace my old copy.
   
   Of course, Mr. Brickhill seems to be a huge fan of Bader, but who in England is not, even those who realize that Bader had a difficult temper, but a difficult temper that was responsibels for getting back in a warplane in war tiem RAF without both legs!
   
   Good read, a classic.

5 comments about A Royal Affair: George III and His Scandalous Siblings.

1. This is the first book I've read by Ms. Tillyard, but it won't be the last. She is an outstanding writer, and the tale she tells here is both novel and worthwhile. Despite having read a good deal about George III and his reign, including Christopher Hibbert's terrific biography, I nonetheless was relatively clueless about his troublesome siblings, especially the precocious and infinitely ambitious Caroline Matilda. Good story very well told.



2. 
   The book is at it's best when it develops the characters, be they the pricipals, their spouses, tutors, ambassadors, in-laws. Tillyard's description of the parental situation and upbringing of George III is an excellent prelude to his responses to his family's challenges.
   
   George III was true believer in the monarchial system. For him, it was an unchallenged law of nature: his brothers and sisters were his diplomatic pawns. Other generations of siblings had been more compliant. Other monarchs didn't face such a free press or such a powerful parliament. George, by his temperment and training, would and could never understand that the world had fundamentally changed.
   
   The story of Caroline Mathilde is both sad and exciting. Tucked away in Denmark at age 16, what was she to do? George's condescending letter and attitude provide no preparation for a normal monarchial role, let alone the one she's thrust into. It would only be human for her to seek companionship, mentorship and comfort.
   
   The princes, according to George, must also scarifice their lives for dynastic marriages. Having more say in their future, they respond in quite predictable ways. Their choices are complicated by not only their brother the King, but a society that has largely bought into the monrachial system.
   
   I held back a star, because many times details interferred with the flow
   (I think biographers who work with original material, are often disposed to include something in order to document/preserve it whether or not it is interesting to the reader or germain to the larger story) and that the US Revolution is treated separately and briefly at the end.



3. Stella Tillyard's latest effort brings to mind her magnificent earlier work Aristocrats. In A Royal Affair she moves from the nobility to the Royal Family itself, and has produced another fine, scholarly work which has more drama and interest than any novel.
   
   George III and his siblings were the children of Frederick, Prince of Wales and his wife Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. Frederick was despised by his parents King George II and Queen Caroline for no very good reason except that he was the next generation in line to the throne. Despite a lonely upbringing devoid of love and affection he appears here to have been a caring and fairly decent husband and father until his untimely death in 1751.
   
   Losing their father at an early age had an enormous impact on Fred's children. Raised in somewhat straitened and isolated circumstances by a mother who had few maternal feelings, they grew up with various quirks and personality problems which made their lives painful but fascinating to read about. George III, as the oldest son, tried to take on a paternal role even before he became King. His siblings not unnaturally rebelled at this and showed it in a variety of ways. His three brothers Edward Duke of York, Henry Duke of Cumberland, and William Duke of Gloucester caroused and whored their way around London, shocking society and the literate public and infuriating their older brother, who had become oppressively staid and inflexible in dealing with sins of the flesh. The two daughters who lived to adulthood made unhappy political marriages, especially the youngest Caroline Mathilda, who was married off at the age of 15 to the King of Denmark, a 16 year old who was already displaying signs of what today would be diagnosed as schizophrenia.
   
   Tillyard tells the stories of these royal siblings compassionately and well. As she does so she also provides some fascinating discussions of such varied subjects as Enlightenment philosophy and how it led to the development of a literate English public and a national press inclined to investigate and criticize the conduct of royalty, nobility, and politicians alike; the well-developed espionage networks in northern Europe and the Baltic; power politics between and within Britain, Denmark, Germany, and France; and, most importantly, the similarities between George III's troubles with his family and his problems with the American colonists.
   
   If after reading A Royal Affair you are eager for more about the House of Hanover, I recommend Tillyard's earlier work Aristocrats; Christopher Hibbert's George III: A Personal History; and Flora Fraser's Princesses and The Unruly Queen.



4. After reading Stella Tillyard's previous work, Aristocrats about the four Lennox sisters and their romances, I was hooked on this author's wit and style. Most of all it was her ability to look down deep into the hearts of her subjects and help the reader understand why someone would do what they did. Now Tillyard takes on another British family in A Royal Affair.
   
   This time, it's none other than the Hannoverian kings, who first took the British throne in 1714 after the death of Queen Anne. Having a tenuous descent from the Stuarts, they took to the English in a way, happy to have control of a growing empire, and a well-established military and navy, but perhaps not quite comfortable yet with a government that shared power with Parliment and where the monarch was an example and figurehead, and expected to defer as needed to the actual government. Compared to other monarchies in Europe, where the King's word was absolute, it was a very new system to adjust to. Sons who did not become the monarch would be expected to take on leadership roles in the army and navy, and daughters would become bargaining points in arranging treaties and making marriages with other royalties, leaving the homes they had known and doing as best they could in foreign lands.
   
   Unfortunately for King George II, he loathed his eldest son, Frederick, Prince of Wales, and the relationship was anything but good. Harried, and accused of trying to commit treason, Frederick turned to his wife, a German born princess for love and comfort, and their growing brood of children. There would eventually be eight children, the eldest son, George, would become George III, most famous for losing the American colonies and his madness. Two of the daughters, Augusta and Caroline Matilda, would survive childhood and marry into European dynasties. The other sons grew up without the seriousness of their elder brother, and all of the siblings would cause anguish for their brother and king, who after the deaths of their father and grandfather, viewed himself as both a brother and parent.
   
   While Tillyard touches a bit on the other siblings, it is on the youngest child, Caroline Mathilde that she focuses most of her attention. Only four months old after the early death of her father Frederick, Caroline grew up knowing that she would be married off to some prince or king, and watching her own mother's unhappiness and that of her elder sister, was no doubt a sobering influence on her own prospects. She was pretty and blonde, with the pale blue eyes and full mouth that ran her family, and figure that promised to be plump later on in life. At the age of fifteen she was married by proxy to the young king of Denmark, Christian VII. He was also a cousin, with Great Britain and Denmark having regularly suppling princesses to serve as queen consort in each others countries for a while. An etching survives of Caroline at the time, dressed in ermine and pearls, her eyes brimming and a look of misery on her face; she knew that it was unlikely that she would ever return to England, or see anyone in her family again.
   
   Unfortunately for Caroline, her husband was young and immature, and subject to fits of mania, and a strong sadomasochistic streak. Caroline managed to bear her husband a son and heir, and tried to make the best of a bad situation; she hated formality and ceremonial, and yearned for simplicity and more pastorial life. When a doctor came to consult for the king, Caroline found herself involved in intrigue, and a scandal erupted that rocked Europe.
   
   Struensee was ambitionous, much older than Caroline, and a man that Christian VII trusted. It became a sort of three-sided relationship, with Caroline acting more for the king when he was lost in his fits of violence, and turning ever more to Struensee for advice, which the good doctor was more than happy to give to her. Eventually, the relationship became much more intimate and personal, and when the scandal broke, Caroline had not only given birth to a child who was not the king's, but faced the very real possibility of exile, imprisonment or even execution.
   
   What happens next was a shocker. I was fascinated by this story of royalty gone wrong and especially one that I had never heard of before. It also shed light on George III's relationships with his own children, from the sons who gambled, were spendthrifts and married all sorts of the wrong women, and to his six daughters that he adored, but didn't want to marry. Could it be that his own observations on his sisters' and mother's fates influenced his decisions for his daughters' futures?
   
   Tillyard's writing is excellent, and the stories of these unfortunate royals makes for compelling reading. While the story does get a bit dry in the telling of it, the emotional pitch is high, and I found myself caring if anyone in these stories was going to have a happy ending. It's also a very personal tale of love and politics.
   
   Included in the text are two inserts of colour and black and white depictions of the main characters, and there is a map of Denmark, as well as two genelogical charts showing the links between the English and Danish royal families. Extensive notes, bibliography and index provide an opportunity for future research.



5. Stella Tillyard continues in her singular mode of enlightened gossip from the age of enlightenment that she has employed in previous histories. I was delighted a few years ago by her "Citizen Lord: The Life of Edward Fitzgerald, Irish Revolutionary," which gave a spirited biography of a real-life romantic figure. In "A Royal Affair," the era is a little earlier and the environs a bit more easterly. Once again, Tillyard has done her homework and cites heavily from original sources. Yes, it is gossip on a grand scale. But if it were just that, it would simply be People Magazine transposed by two-hundred and thirty-odd years. Instead, Tillyard brings the zeitgeist of London and Denmark to this readable book; moreover, she links the personal actions of the principals to the intellectual eddies brought forth by the French philosophes Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. Most interesting to me was her consideration of how budding aristocrats were educated. This linkage between grand ideas and real actions of large players on the European stage which welded both childcraft and statecraft renders this a winning book. The final chapter gives an interpretation of how George III's behavior in his family affairs may be mirrored in his actions to his rebelling colonies. I must re-read this section before I am convinced that it is not a tidy, but stretched, bow to wrap around an otherwise fine book.

No comments about Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War, 1874-1945.

5 comments about Parallel Lives: Five Victorian Marriages.

1. I read this book when it first came out and just re read it. The people then are just like people now. A gossipy fun book



2. The story of five marriages none of which quite fits the pattern of what might be considered to be a truly successful one i.e. one in which the mutual love and help of each other through the years helps both not only achieve their own private realization in work, but most importantly create a loving warm family with children who themselves form such a family. Instead we have Jane and Thomas Carlyle, Ruskin and Effi, Dickens and his mother - of -twelve he abandoned, the working Lewes and great George Eliot, each of whom is a story told well indeed by Rose who has a power of narrative and human perceptiveness that are outstanding.
   I found this work to be a very enjoyable ' read' but not a great and inspiring one in regard to living my own life.



3. The author avers that every marriage is a narrative construct. Phyllis Rose describes the courtship and decision to marry of Jane Welsh and Thomas Carlyle.
   
   The extraordinary and almost exclusive connection of John Ruskin with his parents is depicted. The thought-out plan of Frances and Charles Kingsley in the first four weeks of marriage is presented by way of contrast to the circumstances of John Ruskin and Effie Gray. Effie and John were troubled both by their own relationship and pulls and ties from their respective families. Ruskin was never to express remorse for his behavior. He did not understnd that he was partly at fault in the break up of his marriage.
   
   The views of Effie and John could not be reconciled. The story of the Ruskins anticipates MIDDLEMARCH. Ruskin admired John Everett Millais. Effie was a model for one of the paintings of Millais. The Ruskins and Millais and others spent four months together on a sort of extended reading party in Scotland. After six years the Ruskins reached a stalemate. Effie sought practical advice from Lady Eastlake whose husband headed the Royal Academy. She advised her to confide in her parents. There was a dramatic flight and the serving of papers. Ruskin's domestic calamities were less important to him than Turner's death. Eventually Effie and Millais had eight children.
   
   Harriet and John Taylor were Unitarians. They had an enlightened circle. Harriet was introduced to John Stuart Mill by her minister to divert her attention from marital incompatibilities. The Taylors and Mill formed a triangle. Two years after her husband's death Harriet agreed to become Mrs. Mill. Both Harriet and John Stuart Mill had been made lonely by exceptional intelligence. Mill's mind was a marvel, but he initiated nothing. Harriet served an executive function in the production of his books and articles. Mill's autobiography was written as a defense of his wife.
   
   Catherine Hogarth attended a birthday party Charles Dickens gave himself. She was twenty. Dickens was astonishing for his outpouring of invention. Ambitious men marry young. Dickens had devoted male companions and in the early years of his marriage enjoyed domestic happiness. After 1850 Dickens changed. He craved emotional intensity with another person. At the time of starting LITTLE DORRIT restlessness tormented him. He turned to the theater, to acting. Her met Ellen Ternan and began a sentimental attachment. In later life Kate Dickens felt she and the other children were wicked not to take their mother's part.
   
   The domestic life of George Henry Lewes and George Eliot centered on work. George Eliot seized her identity as a writer from her union with Lewes. The couple was spared the pursuit of respectibility.
   
   Notes, bibliography, and a timeline appear at the back of the book. This book has been well-known and lavishly praised since it was issued. Nothing about it changes the high estimation bestowed previously. The book lives up to all of the anticipated pleasure envisioned in the reading of it.



4. I loved this book when it was first published in the 80s for all the reasons put forth by the preceeding enthusiatic reviewers. So was startled to see it had only a 3 star rating when I visited Amazon a short while ago, searching for a second-hand copy.

   Why this book has been out of print for so long is totally mystifying. For, you see, I'm not alone in my love of it. - every person I've loaned it to has had nothing but praise for it.

   But most telling of all, each person has liked it so much that they've passed it on to a friend of theirs, who's evidently done the same, in a never-ending chain of handovers.

   Hence my search for yet another second-hand copy earlier today, But, more to the point, isn't this the best recommendation any book can genuinely have: being handed on from person to person with the exhotation : "You'll really love this book. . . you've got to read it now!"




5. Why did Phyllis Rose write this book? In her prologue, she states her opinion that marriage is the most creative thing we do. She says that marriages ("parallel lives")are fascinating because they "set two imaginations to work constructing narratives about experience presumed to be the same for both." Then she set out for 300+ pages in what amounts to little more than a gossipy complian-fest of "He did" - "She did". We get to hear all the wives gripes about their sexless, loveless marriages, then we get to hear about all the mens' whines about their frigid, shallow wives. Never once does Rose entertain the idea that one or more of her subjects may have been homosexual and were using marriage as the conventional way to get through their lives. Nothing does she tell us of what made these marriages so particularly and peculiarly Victorian - I know plenty of people right now in the year 2002 who have arranged their lives in much the same way as these Victorians.

   Reading this book, all I could think of how it reaks of 1980's feminism: self-centered, self-serving. Rose flips sides faster than a pancake when it's convenient to her argument (whatever that may be.) One minute she cries for a woman who must marry a distateful man just so she can get out of her parents' house, but she doesn't find it strange that a woman's brother stick his nose into the private business of her relationship with other men. Go figure!

   After finishing the book, I could only ask myself: Why was this book written???