5 comments about John Wilkes: The Scandalous Father of Civil Liberty.

1. This book reads well and has lots of of things of interest to say about this great, but flawed Englishman. One small niggle: the author has difficulty with the peerage system and titles [especially the sons of peers and the correct use of Royal Highness, which does not refer to the monarch]- okay, pretty trivial for most purposes, but fairly important for a historian of 18th century British politics.



2. The name of John Wilkes has come up in several books I've read and in a few classes I've taken, but I never really learned all that much about him. Arthur Cash has written a good biography of this eighteenth century Englishman who gained fame for pointing out and fighting the abuses perpetrated by his own government, namely the Parliament and the King's ministers (Wilkes rarely blamed King George III personally). Specifically, Wilkes fought his government when it came to issues like the general search warrant, freedom of press and privacy, and the right of the people, not parliament, to choose its representatives in the House of Commons. Indeed, all this makes Wilkes out to be a champion of civil liberty as well as for the rights of commoners, which in many ways he was, but he also remained loyal to the crown and acted against rioters and mob action, at least that which threatened to turn into lawlessness. It's also worth mentioning that our country learned from some of the causes Wilkes fought for.
   
   In addition to Wilkes's causes and actions taken in the public sphere, we get to see the John Wilkes who enjoyed the intimate company of many women, producing one legitimate daughter (Polly) and a few illegitimate children along the way, enjoyed a good bawdy joke or just making fun of a political figure, spending himself into deeper and deeper debt and so on. Wilkes was not a one-dimensional man by any means. It seemed to come across in this book that John Wilkes tried to make the most out of life, though I think he enjoyed certain things a little too much. He did not seem to sink into complete despair or unhappiness; his contemporaries made note of this upbeat side of his personality. But his activities without question made him a controversial person.
   
   He published criticisms of the government that led to his being declared an outlaw, resulted in a few duels, forced him into exile, was imprisoned and even then was being elected to serve in the House of Commons, but was denied a seat until he finally did win the right to represent the constituents who had elected him to serve. He served in other positions as well, including as Alderman, Lord Mayor of London and Chamberlain (like a treasurer for the city of London). Throughout his ordeals, his reputation and popularity only grew, much to the chagrin of those in government who had been subjected to his wit and criticisms. Wilkes also spoke out in the House of Commons as a supporter for universal suffrage for men, almost unheard of at that time.
   
   In addition to these sides to Wilkes's public roles and his personal life, which I've only so briefly touched on, we become acquainted with many of his friends and associates as well as his enemies, his close and loving relationship with his daughter Polly, though he also seemed kind and loving towards his illegitimate children. Indeed, Cash makes it a point to reveal that Wilkes was often a very courteous, loyal and true gentleman, though this isn't always the case. He was full of life. These are some of the impressions I came away with from reading this book. There were still certain episodes I would have liked to have known a little more about, namely his public service roles and more about his accomplishments and or failures, a more in-depth view of his take on the American Revolution and its conclusion among other things. In the afterword, Cash mentioned that his take on Wilkes is different from that of many other historians; I would have liked the author to have developed that point more. I guess that's what reading other sources are for. Needless to say, this was a good biography on a very colorful individual.



3. John Wilkes was one of the most fascinating figures of the 18th century, both politically and personally. We in the U.S. owe many of the principles in the Bill of Rights to Wilkes, yet how many Americans have heard of him? Especially now, when so many of our civil liberties are being eviscerated, this is an important book. Wilkes was also a colorful character -- to say that he loved wine, women, and song is an understatement. This was a guy who squeezed every drop he could out of life, all the while fighting battles for a free press, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, and free speech. Arthur Cash has given us a rich historical portrait of a true hero (along with some unforgettable Wilkes quotes). If you've never heard of North Briton No. 45, what are you waiting for?!



4. John Wilkes could be considered a "flower-child of the 60's". The 1760's, that is. As I read this magnificent telling of JOHN WILKES: THE SCANDELOUS FATHER OF CIVIL LIBERTY by Arthur Cash, I couldn't help but wonder how this free spirit would be accepted today. I was reminded of countless modern day examples of people who resemble this man they probably never heard of. Cash captures the essence of his subject in an erudite fashion seldom found.
   
   We Americans owe a great deal to Wilkes, and yet, he ranks but a footnote in the pages of our history. Wilkes encompassed the American spirit of independence and if known today, would be a folk hero of the highest regard. Perhaps Cash's work can help put the name of John Wilkes in its rightful place.
   
   John Wilkes had to compensate for his less than dashing looks, and he did so quite well with his wit. He was cross-eyed and had a most prominent jaw, almost to the point of deformity. By the time he was forty, he had lost his teeth and spoke with a very heavy lisp. His wit can be illustrated by his comment to Lord Sandwich who told Wilkes he would either die of the pox or at the gallows. Wilkes retorted, "That depends, my Lord, on whether I embrace your wife, or your principles."
   
   Wilkes pushed the bounds of the "free press" with his publication, the North Briton, which at one point, won him a week in the tower. In the end, however, Wilkes' incessant attack on pushing the boundaries of the free press would eventually make his name synonymous with liberty.
   
   We picture those stuffy men of the late 18th century sitting in Parliament with their starched collars, their powdered wigs, and their staunch expressions and I'm sure many of them fit that very description. But this parliamentarian, writer, freedom fighter and part time pornographer will shock readers with just how "anti-establishment" he was, and for the most part, got away with.
   
   Arthur Cash has composed a delightful, though lengthy read about someone we all should get to know a little better.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com



5. A superior biography of an Englishman who had a great impact on the advancement of liberty, both at home and, by example, in the colonies that were to become the United States.
   
   Today's readers will find this life of John Wilkes deserving of attention for a multitude of reasons. Professor Cash gives clear background on many of the political and judicial terms of that age, many of which are still in use today. The evil that was embedded in general warrants, the beginnings to a right of privacy, freedom of the press, and the start towards universal suffrage are all part of this story. As well as the private worldly pleasures of an unorthodox gentleman who never met a debt or woman he could refuse.
   
   One of the best books, if not the best, I have read this past year. If you are a fan of James Boswell or Voltaire I wager that you will enjoy this worthy effort by the accomplished author Arthur H. Cash.

5 comments about Burying Caesar: The Churchill-Chamberlain Rivalry.

1. This book is fantastic. I found it superb. Joseph Chamberlain was one of the giants of 19th Century English politics - the family owned a business now known as GKN Plc.
   
   In the Conservative Party his great rival was Lord Randolph Churchill, father of Winston who started out as a Conservative, became a Liberal, and switched back to Conservative.
   
   Chamberlain's eldest son Austen [his mother died 2 days after his birth] once dined with Bismarck and won the Nobel Peace Prize as Foreign Secretary. He died just as his younger half-brother, Neville became Prime Minister after a superb track record of social reform but inspired by his brother's work he found a very different Germany and dreams of peace became delusions



2. Offers an interesting perspective on the background to the rivalry between Churchill and Chamberlain. Of course, it wasn't really a rivalry at all until Munich blew up in Chamberlain's face. Until that moment Chamberlain was utterly dominant and Churchill was a widely disliked "has been". The author demonstrates how luck played a key role in elevating Churchill from the "backbenches" to the "Treasury Bench".
   
   In my untutored opinion, the author is far too kind to Chamberlain who was, again in my opinion, an arrogant fool. Read Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott, The Appeasers, for a better take on the enormity of what Chamberlain and Halifax (et al) perpetrated.
   
   Don't waste your time unless you have a strong interest in the gritty details of English history.



3. In a democracy, the people have the leaders they deserve. This would seem a rather self-evident observation, but one which is often forgotten when the inadequacy of Britain's political leadership facing Hitler in the thirties is discussed. As a citizen of a country that was ultimately liberated from nazi oppression by British troops, I certainly have no wish to belittle the heroism of the British people during World War II, but you need to make a clear distinction between Churchill's Britain living out its finest hour between 1940 and 1945 and the Britain of Baldwin and Chamberlain, struck hard by the twin calamities of World War I and the great depression and seeking only peace and comfort at almost any cost. This is what Burying Ceasar brilliantly demonstrates.
   
   With the future of mankind hanging in the balance, the drama of Britain dealing with the menace of Nazi Germany boils down to a political and personal struggle between two elderly gentlemen, Chamberlain and Churchill, both striving to fulfill the ambitions of their fathers and families: Neville Chamberlain was both a son and a brother of great men, while Churchill, allthough the scion of a great family, was in reality the son of a demented political loser whom he nevertheless adored. No materialistic approach to history here - events are shaped by individuals, their qualities and flaws have decisive influence on the course of history. Burying Caesar portrays both men in an honest and objective way, neither vilifying Chamberlain nor glorifying Churchill and this is one of the great strenghts of the book.
   
   It has been stated that the book seeks to redeem the reputation of Neville Chamberlain, but I do not agree. Burying Caesar merely frees itself from the conventional wisdom that Chamberlain was a narrow-minded and untrustworthy coward, showing us instead a basically decent and well-meaning politician who unfortunately (not least for himself) advanced to a position that demanded greater talents than this rather mediocre personality had been provided with. Chamberlain had been a reasonably succesful chancellor of the exchequer during the worst years of the depression and had his career ended at that, he would have been remembered in a mostly positive light as a minor figure of British history rather than as one of the worst failures of world history. Still, faced with an electorate which (naturally) did not want another war and hampered by his own lack of international experience, Chamberlain no doubt tried his best to serve his country. That he was no match for Hitler is obvious but one might wonder if any other British PM could really have prevented World War II (given, for instance, the attitude of France...).
   
   Which brings us to Churchill. A vain, self-serving man of immense personal ambition, idiosyncratic in his view of the world yet ready to compromize if it might bring him back into the corridors of power. Not a man to be trusted, not a leader for times of great crisis. Yet history proved him right about the nazi menace and he turned out to be just the right leader for Britain when war came and the British people were ready once more to demonstrate heroism in the face of terrible adversity. Burying Caesar depicts Churchill with all his flaws, yet also shows us how he held on to his basic belief that Freedom and Justice would have to stand firm against Oppression and Crime and how that very staunchness made him into the leader now revered by all mankind - a fascinating portrait of the imperfect genius among men who were merely imperfect.
   
   Graham Stewart writes historical non-fiction in the great tradition of British scholars such as A.J.P. Taylor, Corelli Barnett, Martin Gilbert etc. More, please....



4. It is all well and good to make this big deal over Chamberlian's
   conscience, honour etc something that history does not record that had much to do with stopping Chamberlian from breaking his word fairly fairly regularly. A leader has to take responsibilities for the decisions that he makes within the parameters that he works under. In Chamberlain's case, he totally misjudged Hitler and his regime. It is not like the Nazis made any secret of their aims. As this book points out many in his own party like Churchill were worried that his actions.

   Before the war and during the war, Chamberlain failed to produce the type of leadership required by his nation.

   To Chamberlain credit, as the book points out, once he realized that Hitler could not be trusted his appeasement policy came to an end. I wish that other world leaders would have this sort of moral strength to admit sometimes that what they did was wrong and try to correct it.




5. Much has been written about Churchill's wilderness years in the 1930's ranging from the lavish praise of William Manchester to the scorn of a John Charmley. I have never before seen a history covering the precise topic of this book which is the rivalry between Churchill and Neville Chamberlain during the decade which began with Churchill an ostracized outcast and Chamberlain a rising star and yet ended with Chamberlain a scorned failure and Churchill a triumphant war leader.

   Young British historian Graham Stewart has put together a massive and meticulous study of just how and why events played out as they did between the two men. American readers be warned, this book is extremely British in tone, use of idiom and most of all, in its intricate discussion of British Parliamentary politics in the thirties. Stewart certainly assumes his readers are aware of the British electoral and Parliamentary system and the way it works. I myself, an American reader, am not but this was not too much of a handicap as I was able to follow the story without too much difficulty.

   The first part of the book provides a good deal of background on British politics from the age of Churchill's father, Randolph and Chamberlain's father Joseph through the beginning of the twenties. Stewart describes the rise and fall of various parties, in particular the National Liberals of Lloyd George in the early twenties. While Chamberlain was not a player in national politics during the twenties (although his brother Austen was), Churchill was at the height of his influence, having left the Liberal party and slowly edging back towards the Conservatives. Stanley Baldwin would make him Chancellor of the Exchequer and Churchill became a full fledged Conservative once again in 1925. Further chapters describe the Conservative's loss to a Labour/Liberal coalition and Churchill's resignation from the shadow cabinet over the "India Bill". When he gets to the thirties, Stewart covers the Parliamentary maneuvering in incredible detail. Contrary to popular belief, Churchill, though out of favor with the party powers, maintained his supporters, known as Winstonians.

   Chamberlain was quite different than Churchill as Stewart demonstrates, unlike Churchill, his primary loyalty was to the party not to any specific principles. It was not for nothing that Churchill referred to him as "that clerk from Birmingham." But this was the sort of man Baldwin was looking for. Churchill's first true breach with the party came over his demand that Britain re-arm in order to protect itself from the designs of Nazi Germany. Although his criticism of the Baldwin government was muted by his desire to regain office, Churchill consistently called for stronger defense preparation. After 1935, when it was clear he would never gain office under Baldwin, Churchill became a vocal and outspoken critic earning him the ire not only of the Conservatives but of the Labourites as well, who favored suicidal disarmament.

   Chamberlain became prime minister in 1937 upon Baldwin's retirement. With no background in foreign affairs, he was immediately confronted with foreign crises caused by the growing belligerence of Nazi Germany, the Spanish Civil War and the actions of Fascist Italy. Despite the book's subtitle, there really was no rivalry between Churchill and Chamberlain until the Munich crisis of 1938. At this point Churchill moved into open opposition with his own party by delivering one of the most eloquent addresses of his career, denouncing the Munich pact before the House of Commons. This is the best part of the book. Stewart is never unfair to either man and not at all a revisionist. Nevertheless, he never hesitates to point out the fantastic assumptions upon which Chamberlain based his policy of appeasement. A most interesting point is how little Churchill actively did to maneuver himself into power. Although an outspoken opponent of appeasement, Churchill did nothing either publicly or privately to create the conditions which led to his return to office and his eventual ascension to the prime minister's office. In fact, once he joined the government and the war cabinet upon the outbreak of war, he muted his criticisms of Chamberlain and became a loyal soldier. In the end, despite his best laid plans and hopes, Chamberlain died a sad and broken man, his policy of appeasement in ruins. Churchill ascended to the ultimate heights of greatness in which he is held today. The reader of this book will learn a great deal about Churchill about whom much has been written as well as a great deal about Chamberlain about whom less has been written. Once the story begins to focus on the rising menace of Naziism, it is always riveting and frequently fascinating. The book is dense, scholarly and yet eminently readable. I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it to any serious reader of history.

2 comments about The Kings & Queens of England (Revealing History).

1. It would be easier to remember the kings and queens of England if they didn't all have the same names. A Chudley and an Irma in there would have helped a lot. Tired of trying to remember which Henry is which, I checked this book out of the library and then bought one so I would have a handy reference. It gives a synopsis of them all consecutively beginning with several I didn't even know about. It is forthright and not necessarily kind. I'm enjoying it.



2. I really enjoy reading about the different monarchs throughout time. Ormrod's book has made it so easy to read about and learn more about these kings and queens who have shapped the world. "The Kings and Queens of England" is the perfect introduction to all of the different houses and all of the different monarchs. The way in which this book was written allows the reader to either read the book completely or look up particular intrests. He has made it so easy and fairly enjoyable.
   
   I very much recomend this book to anyone who has a historical intrest in the royal families because this is very well written and filled with loads of information that I have not heard any where else.

5 comments about Disraeli: The Victorian Dandy Who Became Prime Minister.

1. Christopher Hibbert is one of the greatest and best-beloved contemporary historians. His biography of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is an excellent, informative, entertaining work that lives up to Hibbert's outstanding reputation. Disraeli is not easy to like. Though brilliant and highly talented, he is sarcastic, critical, and at times a bit of an arrogant snob. But Hibbert's prose is so fluid, and his skills so very well honed, that the book is a joy to read. I recommend it highly.



2. As those before me have said, DONT BOTHER. It's sad that so great an author as Christopher Hibbert was allowed by his publisher to put out this book which is just a rehash of a book he wrote about Disraeli 30 years ago. Except that mostly it's with a lot of additional material that is only excerpt from letters he wrote and those written to him.
   
   Soooo much of the book is wasted on discussions of people who meant nothing to him in his later life and seem like nothing but fill. If this was a student paper it would fail.
   
   There is a very good short bio by Edgar Feuchtwanger, and two monstrous volumes (over 700 pages) by Robert Lord Blake, and Stanley Weintraub.



3. This is not so much a biography as an itinerary. Benjamin Disraeli went to a country house in High Bascombe-on-Boring, the seat of Lord Irrelevant Nobody, and his wife, the daughter of Viscount Who Cares? and the cousin of the mistress of the architect of another country house Disraeli visited ten years later. Oh, and he was vain and self-promoting, but gave great speeches. Or so he says, in his letters, which (as noted in the other reviews) appear to be the author's exclusive sources. We don't know what they were about, but, boy, did he ever think they were great! I don't know what the author thought, either, about Disraeli, or why he wrote such a book. What puzzles me, and what I have yet to figure out, is, who is the intended audience? Who would ever want an utterly non-political book about Benjamin Disraeli? His only interest to posterity -- which is substantial yet ignored here -- is as a politician and statesman. Everything else -- and especially his travelogue and endless fetes with foreign dignitaries --is unworthy of our attention. This is an astonishingly lazy book by a writer who apparently only wanted to add another impressive title to his bibliography. Fine. But leave us out of it.



4. An embarrasing and lazy pastiche of quotes from Disraeli's correspondence woven with an old fashioned snobbish viewpoint. There is no historical context and no discussion of what made Disraeli the importasnt figure he was. Disraeli comes off as a self-serving, superficial and useless fop, lusting after high-class recognition. This bojk should have been rejected in manuscript. Whatever reputation Mr. Hibbert may have had, it is vitiated by this piece of sophomoric drivel.



5. A miserably rendered biography of one of the most complex men in British history. Hibbert writes from within his comfortable, unexamined cell of "Britishness." He superficially dismisses Disraeli's Jewish upbringing with a wave of the hand, showing not a whit of insight or interest into how it may have affected Disraeli's adult behavior--his choices of dandyism, novel writing, and even his peculiarly powerful oratory. Hibbert just neatly fits Disraeli into categories he, Hibbert, pulls out of his own experience from within what's normal and usual in British life. Moreover, the book quotes huge, unedited swaths not only of Disraeli's letters and journals (somewhat defensible) but also from other recent biographers. So it reads like the work of an undergraduate. Ultimately, Hibbert is not at all inquisitive about what led this man of many and great parts to find such a singular way to live, and to succeed in what, in the book's only success, we see was a terribly hostile social environment for a Jew(populated by powerful anti-Semites like Carlyle and Dickens, Trollope, etc.). This is poorly done work.

5 comments about Granuaile: The Life and Times of Grace O'Malley 1503-1603.

1. Anne Chambers is the authority on Granuaile O'Malley, and she has written the definitive scholarly work in this biography on her.



2. Anne Chambers' book provides a fascinating and inspiring glimpse into the life of an extraordinary Irish woman. Ms Chambers does an excellent job painting a picture of life in Ireland during the 16th century and the role of women in Ireland through the ages. Anyone traveling to Ireland or interesting in Irish history and the role of women in Irish society will benefit from reading this biography.



3. It's my fault really but this book is just not what I was looking for and I could not get through it.



4. This book was excellently written. To the person who said the anti-christian statements were not true- Let me guess? Your a christian right. Thats the problem with christians, they still deny the truth no matter what. Christianity has always been a man's religion and its the most degrading religion to women and womens rights that has ever existed. I'm glad this author had the guts to be more unique and unconventional to tell the TRUTH. Sorry Christians. I know you never appreciate that.



5. I'm an O'Malley, so you can bet I was looking forward to this book. However, with all due respect to the author, at least in the early going, this book contains some anti-Christian, radical feminist claims that put into question the integrity of the rest of it. For instance, on page 17-18 (paperback edition) the author states: "The writings of the early Christian saints, such as Paul, John, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, reflected the degraded position of women in Roman society. Augustine wrote of the 'horrible beastliness of women'..."
   
   Not surprisingly, the author can not substantiate this claim and therefore does not give reference to the original source documents in her endnotes as she does with other claims. Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that the period in which Granuaile lived was male dominated, and at times, shamefully so. However, that doesn't give an author a license to try to right any injustices by yet another injustice.
   
   It's a shame that the apparent good intentions of this author were laid waste by her seeming desire to bash males and Christianity. A biographer should, at the very least, seek, know and uphold the truth, and then tell the good, the bad and the ugly in an even handed way. This isn't too much to ask.

2 comments about Margaret: The Last Real Princess.

1. Not great, but not bad. A nice easy read, this is unfortunately a one-sided portrait of an otherwise complex interesting character, focusing mostly on her romantic controversies. I would have liked to know a bit more about all of her, her hobbies, daily routines, relationship with other Royals. I was also disappointed at the photographs, whole pages of her lovers! I would have liked to see her homes, her clothes, and her beautiful wedding. Not a disappointment by any means but this could have been a richer read than as it stands.



2. I hesitated in deciding to review this book. Is it worth drawing the public's attention to a book that is, at best, descriptive journalism which promises more than it delivers? Only after reading the book did I acquaint myself with the author's journalistic reputation which helped explain some of my original disappointment with the book. As an academic, I cannot recommend this book to any serious reader interested in matters concerning the Windsor family. The book lacks proper endnotes and citations. Botham rarely identifies his sources but chooses convincing descriptive labels that suggest authoritative individuals with first hand knowledge. I am disappointed in Botham's "soap opera" treatment of a topic that is of genuine interest to many in the British Commonwealth. In short, save your money!

5 comments about Henry V as Warlord (Classic Military History).

1. Henry V was one of the most ferocious of England's kings. Through sheer force of will alone he was able to quell his English nobility into following him, and then turn to the French and do the same to them.
   
   Seward does a great job in using the contemporary sources of the time to illustate who the man really was, all the meanwhile not falling prey to the trappings of the propoganda of the time. His illustration of the man's short life is invaluable to anyone reading French or English history, but especially for anyone who is looking for information on the Hundred Years War.
   
   A must read for history buffs.



2. ... Desmond Seward's book does much to clear the myth about Henry V from the theater and movie images but as the title of the book suggested, Henry V was a warlord and a pretty good as that. I enjoyed reading this book, clearly written, neatly on focus as Seward does not spread himself too thin and kept his eye on the military aspect of Henry V's career. That was his purpose for the book, wasn't it? The book revealed that Henry was a gifted commander, brutal as any but no more then any for the time period. he waged an aggressive war and took advantages of his enemies. That don't make him a bad man in my book, not during that period of history. Henry V's only sin, it seem was that he simply died too soon and left a son too young. Overall, a very good book, author's effort to show the "real" Henry V was a success but Henry's accomplishments were real enough that Shakespeare wanted to make him a national hero!



3. Henry V was one of the most evil kings to occupy the English throne. Shakespeare's play about him glorified him because he conquered so much territory in France. Even though he only occupied the English thorne for 9 years, he caused 600 years of political damage between France and England. His motto was, "I'm the scourge of God and I'm here to punish men for their sins."

   Normandy, one of the best grain producing regions of France was practically raised to the ground. It was devastated along with other northern regions of France. The English murdered, raped, pillaged, and committed almost every kind of evil to France during this period of medieval history.

   After his victory at Agincourt in 1415, Henry V invaded France while it was in a civil war. At the Treaty of Troyes, he dictated his own terms for the future of France. Charles VI, "the mad king of France", didn't have a say in the treaty because he was insane. Henry took advantage of this. In the treaty, it stated that Henry would marry Charles'daughter and if Charles VI died, Henry would become both king of England and France.

   When the Hundred years war was dormant, Henry rekindled it for another 50 years. His only reason was to declare that he was the true heir to the French throne. During those 50 years the English committed so many atrosities to France, they paled in comparison to what the Saracens did to the Crusaders. This is the main reason the French mistrust and dislike the English to this day.




4. Those who admire Shakespeare's Henry V and Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation, and who are curious about the real King Henry, will find this book to be a good read: fluently and clearly written, neither too short nor too long. Henry was a sort of monster; he was also a great man. The human race naturally admires such men, and for that reason one should not fault Shakespeare for creating a great national hero out of a ruthless military genius. What is remarkable is that so much of the real Harry comes through in the play. Even so, the disasters of war inflicted on the French are appalling to read about in this book. The Nazi occupation was mild in comparison. The French are notorious for their aversion to English speakers. Is the reason, as Desmond Seward says, the memory of this quintessential English hero?



5. Shakespeare's Henry V forms the basis for most people's impression of this monarch. This remarkably effective piece of propaganda presents Henry as an inexperienced and brave young man with a number of attractive features. In this fine book, Desmond Seward presents a realistic picture of Henry V that is quite different from the Henry in Shakespeare. While Henry came to the throne at a young age, he was already an experienced commander and administrator. His skills had been developed in the rather vicious politics of contemporary England and by the leading role he played in subduing rebellion in Wales. Based on a careful reading of sources and his extensive knowledge of Medieval Europe, Seward presents Henry as an unusually capable and ruthless leader bent on consolidating royal authority in England and conquering France. Seward's well justified analysis of Henry's motivations are based on Henry's insecurity over his claim to the throne, which had been usurped by his father. Seward infers that the undoubtedly pious Henry regarded his attempt to conquer France as a trial by God over the issue of the legitimacy of his crown. Henry's successes then were sanction of his efforts to conquer France and his right to occupy the throne of England. This book provides fine narrative of Henry's life as a soldier and campaigner. Seward's descriptions of Medieval warfare and politics are excellent. He addresses well why a small and relatively sparsely populated country like England could do so well in combat against the French. Seward addresses also the question of why the English presence proved to evanescent. My only complaint with this book is that it did not cover other aspects of Henry's life. This is not entirely fair as Seward aimed at covering Henry's life as a attempted conquerer and he achieves his aims easily. This is not an attempt at a comprehensive biography. Seward's intelligent treatment of these aspects of Henry's life makes me wish he had attempted a broader book.

No comments about James Tissot: Victorian Life/Modern Love.

5 comments about Cary Grant.

1. Very intersting. My 2nd bio on Grant. I think you tend to rate things better if you are a fan of the person rated which I am. It put into a nice sequence the facts of his life. Kept me interested with photos, the factual and the gossip. Why else would we read about movie stars.



2. This book would doubtless be better known, and better publicized, were it not published by a reputable university press. Don't mislead yourself, however. There's nothing tedious about McCann's book, which is very well written and measured in its judgments. Those wanting gossip and sensationalism should look elsewhere. Even those who know Grant's background and career will learn new things here. In a word: a splendid interpretation of an insidpensable performer.



3. It's detailed and well sourced and actually has quotes from people who actually knew him and lived through these events with the man. I felt like I actually had insight to the man rather than the image and the decades of gossip which seems to have been taken as fact by most of the other Cary Garnt biographers. He tells Cary Grant's story respectfully, but doesnt white wash the facts. The anecdotes as told by Cary's friends are fascinting, sometimes hilariously funny and often sad. He approaches the gossip as a researcher would and doesnt try to speculate or parse subjects to support hiw own personal oint of view or agenda.
   
   This is the third biography I've read about Cary Garnt, and compared to the other very light offerings this was by far the best and most comprehensive. I learned for example that Cary Grant was not only a great charmer, but a shrewd businessman who consistently outwitted the studio bosses at every turn. I enjoyed learning about his incredible sense of honor which often times landed him in hot water and led to many of the vindictive rumors we are still hearing today. He hated the gossip columnists at the time and was embroiled in a very long and bitter battle with the likes of Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, who he once told to mind her GD business. Got to love the guy.
   
   Great book.



4. Especially if your over 50. He looked, played & acted as the movie star he was. Women loved him. Men would have loved to be him. He was more often seduced than the seducer which was part of his charm. He never forgot who he was & where he came from: Archie Leech from Bristol, England. He was amiable & apolitical yet had a streak of independence & courage that led him to be one of the first stars to break with the studio system. That allowed him to be a free agent & pick the movies he wanted to do. It didn't always work out. Sometimes, the movies stank & he was the best thing in them. But most of his movies were money makers & that was really the only thing that counted. He was admired for his independence. He could be difficult to work with but was not tempermental. He was a professional working to perfect his craft as he liked to put it. This obsession with perfection did not work with the women he loved & he left four failed marriages in his wake. This failing apparently never occurred to him.
   He didn't have to be pushed into old man roles & retired on his own terms. A class act.



5. I wish I could say I wasn't disappointed in this book, since I was looking forward to a well-researched and engrossing book on a screen legend. However, I had to force myself to finish reading it and came away with very little enjoyment and appreciation for the subject. Very nearly ONE THIRD of the book (the latter portion) is not textual biography, but a glossary, filmography and voluminous footnote after footnote after footnote of data supporting the main body (2/3) of the book. Far too many distracting footnotes referenced on virtually every page of the book were significantly annoying, and in many instances a point was belabored ad infinitum. Many key points of detail and anecdotes relating to admired, classic CG movies weren't present, while others were - sorry - rather beaten to death. Supporting photographs were limited and failed to include more than good shots of the subject at a small, select time of his life. I expected a more linear, cohesive, colloquial narrative unencumbered by redundent grammatical 'precision.' The book was obviously well-researched, but extreme detail does not always do the subject or the audience justice.

1 comments about Eminent Victorians (Dover Value Editions).

1. The work itself is a great read; however, I wish there were some footnotes or endnotes to provide some background for the text. I would recommend another version such as the Oxford edition, which has extensive notes.