5 comments about Sir Francis Drake: The Queen`s Pirate (Yale Nota Bene).

1. The discontented sources used for this book were a sure guarantee that Sir Francis Drake's historical accomplishments would not be shown as world-shaking events but merely "maritime myth". Many in the Royal Admiralty and Queen Elizabeth I's court blatantly reviled Drake as an upstart commoner and threat to the courtly status quo. They frankly hated Drake's guts, and wrote down all their antimosity, while all of Drake's firsthand accounts (especially the journals and logs of his Circumnavigation) have been lost to posterity.
   
   Why did the author treat Drake's actions as cruel and/or unusual in an era when Spanish and Portuguese colonists/explorers/conquistadores' brutality towards the peoples of the Americas, Africa and Southeast Asia knew no bounds whatsoever? Drake showed much more consideration for the native peoples he met than most of the Spanish or Portuguese had ever done.
   
   The author uses a contemporary politically judgemental tendency to color his attitudes. Having read some of the sources cited in this book and seen none of the spiteful inferences made in TQP, I think the author's attitude perhaps colored his interpretive judgement.
   
   Drake's piracy is condemned, although he only appropriated the riches that the Spanish had extracted through forced labor from the Incas and Aztecs. But nowhere does the author either state or condemn the brutal methods the Spanish used to rob the indigenous people of their culture and their freedom in the name of Empire and the Roman Catholic Church.
   
   Drake had many flaws: a legendary temper, brusque manner and lack of courtly breeding, but he proved himself as a leader of men, a superb sailor and an erascible member of English maritime history.



2. Most professional historians at least try to feign objectivity in their treatment of historical figures. Harry Kelsey does not. The author despises Drake and makes no attempt to hide that fact. Kelsey set out to do a hatchet job and he certainly wasn't going to let history get in the way.
   
   Although the author does a reasonable job of addressing many of the established historical events, he deliberately fails to report dozens of well documented incidents of Drake's mercy and largesse. While Drake's Spanish contemporaries were torturing or executing the Englishmen they captured, Drake repeatedly spared his captives' lives, fed and treated them well, then eventually released them unharmed. These accounts are well documented BY DRAKE'S CONTEMPORARY SPANISH ENEMIES, yet Kelsey cannot bring himself to report these incidents.
   
   Why? Harry Kelsey loathes Drake and cannot force himself to simply objectively report the positive things that Drake's own enemies said about him.
   
   
   More objective treatments of Drake include
   
   1. "Francis Drake" by John Cummings
   
   2. "The Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake" by Samuel Bawlf
   
   3. Passing treatment of Drake in "The Queen's Slave Trader" (biography of John Hawkins) by Nick Hazlewood
   
   Even Kelsey's own more recent (2003) work "Sir John Hawkins -- Queen Elizabeth's Slave Trader" treats Drake (albeit incidentally) more evenhandedly than his "Sir Francis Drake: The Queen's Pirate".



3. Judging by the editorial the book gives a completely wrong picture judging actions from another time and place by modern rules.

   Sir Francis Drake had very little in common with the pirate from the movies. He was more of talented gentleman of 16 century on dangerous, but profitable enterprize.

   I do not remember Drake looting churches, but even if he did - one must not forget about him being protestant during major religious unrest in Europe. His attituide to his enemies was good and he wasn't bloodthirsty. His moral values were quite normal for his time. And his military prowess definitely was higher than normal.

   His performance during engagement with Spanish Armada was good as well (worth to mention, that, unlike of admiral Hogwart - commander of the English fleet, Drake owned some ships of English fleet). The book "Defeat of Spanish Armada" by Garrett Mattingly gives very accurate account on that issue.

   He never lost Queen's favor. He rather lost Queen's admiration, because results of his last expeditions were less spectacular, but he died vice-admiral commanding his fleet.

   I have unplesant feeling that the book is just one of those "detroning" biographies, which use the standard approach "all great people are just good liars" and aimed to entertain readers with no background in the area. Pity, because writing biography of Drake give unique possibility to make reader understand 16 century through picture of this great military leader.




4. For afficionados of Drake, Elizabethan England, or nautical history, this is a first rate read! The scholarship is thorough and well documented without leaving the prose too dry. Author Kelsey exegetically strips the gloss which has been after-added to most accounts of Drake's life (my brother, who is a nautical archaeologist, found it professionally worthwhile). Unfortunately, Kelsey's apparent bias against Drake's commercial focus prevents a discussion of Drake's larger role as an economic multiplier in the Elizabethan fiscus. The cash brought in by Drake's expeditions and similar ilk were probably critical in enabling the crown to finance the struggle against the Spaniards. Still, all in all, highly recommended.



5. I love the story of Sir Francis Drake and his adventures in the Spanish Main and was eager at this chance at such a thourouh telling of his story.

No comments about My Years With Gorbachev and Shevardnadze: The Memoir of a Soviet Interpreter.

4 comments about To D-Day and Back: Adventures with the 507th Parachute Infantry Regiment and Life as a World War II POW: A memoir.

1. This book is an outstanding resource for information about the war in general, but it also provides a different perspective from most accounts. It's very well written and easy to read. It is also the only first-hand account of the war from member of the 507th Parachute Infantry Division I know of.
   
   The book itself starts off pretty much like any other paratrooper memoir. But it's interesting that most of the action takes place in the mid-western United States. I also enjoyed the information about the Texas 36th Infantry Division as it holds a special place in the Italian campaign. The author was a member of the 36th prior to transferring to the 507th.
   
   However, what makes this book special is the author didn't see a tremendous amount of combat in Normandy, France. He was captured by the Germans and promptly sent to a POW camp. The majority of this book details how Bearden survived there, the ingenious ways they staved off hunger when they could, and how poorly treated the Americans were as prisoners of war.
   
   Interestingly enough, he also writes about what happened when his camp was overrun by the Russians. The war wasn't over yet and he had a real issue figuring out where he was and what the best way to get back to the American side of things.
   
   This starts a remarkable trip through central Europe ending in Moscow of all places. If this wasn't more confusing, to make things worse he's eventually captured and placed in a Russian POW camp and well, the rest is quite an interesting and brutal story.



2. This is a good first-person account of one American's adventures and escapades as he goes from being a member of the Texas National Guard in 1940 at the tender age of 17 to becoming several years later a (mortar) squad leader in the famous 82nd Airborne Division as a member of H Company, 507th Parachute Infantry Regiment.
   
   As a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, the author parachutes into Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Unfortunately, at D-Day plus 2, he is captured, along with several others, including a Colonel, after being surrounded and running out of ammunition. (It is the Colonel who orders the men to surrender.)
   
   The author then spends the next several months being shuttled to various German prisoner of war camps, finally ending up in one for American NCOs near the Oder River that is liberated by the Russians in their march toward Berlin. Although the author's experiences as a POW were traumatic, after liberation by the Russians he and his fellow prisoners were left to fend, and forage, for themselves, as the Russians were too intent on exacting revenge on the Germans to assist the freed prisoners.
   
   Incredibly, the author, while simply trying to get back to his own troops, becomes a prisoner of war of the Soviets and then has to escape from a Soviet POW camp, fortunately making it back to his own troops and, eventually, home.
   
   The book, despite its grim tales and subtext, is an enjoyable read as it is written in a first-hand, almost conversational style that makes you feel you are right there in the action. It is an excellent addition to the personal histories of World War II, especially from the perspective not just of the horror and chaos that was D-Day but from the unusual vantage point of someone who was a prisoner of war.



3. I only enjoy reading soldiers accounts of D-Day in their "real words"-not technical history books (showing maps,etc.). This is a terrific account of a paratroopers D-Day jump and aftermate in a German Stalag. He talks about his buddies and the hardships they went thru to survive-a great storyteller. Bob was one real "tough texan" who gave his all...



4. Thank you Bob Bearden for sharing your adventures during WWII. First person accounts of D-Day and WWII are very important for succeeding generations. I am afraid that there are many stories that will never be told because veterans put off recording them until it is too late. I have enjoyed reading your adventures and I feel much closer to understanding what occurred prior to and during WWII. I think that you did a terrific job and I hope it will inspire other veterans to get their stories published. Thanks again.

1 comments about Winston Churchill: Soldier, Statesman, Artist.

1. Winston Churchill: Soldier, Statesman, Artist, is an outstanding, and easy to read book for young adults. It is very detailed and not hard to follow along. It basically describes the entire life of Winston Churchill starting even before he was born. It is an amazing book, yet does get dry at points.

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

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



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



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



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



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

4 comments about Royal Panoply: Brief Lives of the English Monarchs.

1. As a lay person, I found this book a fascinating glimpse into the lives of the British Monarchy. Most of my exposure to them has been through plays or movies, touching on a short vignette or period of time. Having recently seen "Henry V," I was interested in reading what happened to him after Agincourt. And "The Lion in the Winter" was a majestic play that left me wondering which of Elinor's sons would become king. This book is easy reading and a delicious look at the royalty.



2. "Royal Panoply" is an indispensible book for anyone wanting a good, well-written overview of the British monarchy. From William the Conquerer to Elizabeth II, author Carolly Erickson covers the good, the bad and the plain incompetent. It is all of English Royal history in one volume.
   
   Carolly Erickson began her career writing about the Tudors and the Stuarts, so it is not surprising that she is at her best when writing about those reigns. Her brief analysis of those characters who limned the golden age of the English renaissance are the best in the book. She is on less sure, and more gossipy, ground in the chapters on the more modern kings and queens of Great Britain.
   
   Erickson's later writing has suffered in comparison with her first efforts at historical biography, especially "The First Elizabeth" and "Great Harry." She has even condescended to write historical fiction, a "hidden" journal of Marie Antoinette.
   
   With this valuable volume in hand, the eager student of English history will find fascinating facts and tidbits on all of England's Majesties.



3. Dr. Carolly Erickson is a prolific author of historical fictin as well as excellent nonfiction works. Her area of expertise is in medieval and Renaissance literature. Nevertheless, she does a good job of survey all the English kings and queens from William the Conqeror in 1066 to the reign of Elizabeth II.
   Along the way the reader will read of countless murders, cabals, plagues, wars, adulteries and dynastic battles for power.
   There is nothing new here for the serious British historian;
   the book is written for a popular audience in need of getting
   the basics of British history in their heads. The book would be
   an excellent resource for courses in English history and literature. It is well illustrated and is a worthy addition to the library. It can be read from cover to cover or a particular
   monarch can be studied to coincide with the reader's interest.
   No matter how many biographies and history of England I have read this book is valuable because it:
   a. Refreshed my memory on key events that have become murky.
   b. Reminded me of how the fight for constitutional liberty in
   a democratic nation was a hard, bitter and complex struggle.
   Well done and worthy of your time and money!



4. Starting with William the Conqueror and finishing with Elizabeth II and including every English monarch in between, Carolyn Erickson provides an intriguing overview of the royals and their spouses in a chronological fascinating sweep. Each ruler receives somewhere in the range of seven to twelve pages regardless of historical importance or length on the throne. By going chronological, the reference is easy to read and follow, but repetition also occurs as death marks the end of an era (chapter) and the beginning of the next reign (next chapter). The epigraph that starts each royal provides an interesting perspective on that personage and is especially fascinating with the more famous as the audience sees a somewhat differing view than the textbooks or romance novels. Still the lack of analysis of overarching trends takes somewhat away from a fine look that will elate those who prefer their look at the English monarchy based on facts not tabloids.
   
   Harriet Klausner

1 comments about The Nine Day Queen of England: Lady Jane Grey.

1. Nine Day Queen of England is a wonderful book, convincing and truthful. Faith Cook tells the true story of Jane Grey as no other book I've read has! This book is truly amazing. I highly recommend it for anyone who is interested in Lady Jane Grey, or in English Monarchy!
   This is certainly a truthful account of one of England's most tragic and brave monarchs.

2 comments about Hidden Soldier: An Irish Legionnaire's Wars from Bosnia to Iraq.

1. But this is the story how he survived and became a professional military contractor working around the world. But seriously, he's taken far too many chances, in a profession that doesn't leave much room for error.
   
   Some men are drawn into conflict, O'Keefe was born to it. This is story of a true Irish warrior told in his own words. This is a man who backs down from nothing.
   
   First serving with the French Foreign Legion and an expert in explosives, he traveled to such wonderful locations as Cambodia (land of a million land mines), Kosovo, a place where death ruled supreme. Later he served in Iraq and Hattie as a contractor.
   
   I liked this book because it is a very enjoyable, quick read that can be done over a long weekend. It's very well written and he gives no quarter where none is deserved. It is a brutally honest account of the war in Iraq from his perspective. Quite frankly he reminds of men like Bob MacKenzie, only still alive.
   
   But not for a lack of effort on the part of his enemies. No expense was deemed unreasonable in trying to kill him. Wait to you read about the ambush in Iraq. I read about it when it hit the press. But this is the only first hand account there will ever be.
   
   I can't wait for the sequel to be published in about 10 years. If you liked this book and want more information about his line of work, I would suggest reading War Dogs, fighting other people's wars.



2. I have had the pleasure of working in Iraq with Paddy, and this book is a brilliant read, I thought I knew him well, but realise there is so much more to this quiet and well respected man. Well done mate, think about the lads a lot too. SW

5 comments about Philip and Elizabeth: Portrait of a Royal Marriage.

1. This was a gift, & the recipient tells me they are really enjoying it & that it is much better written than many similar books on the subject (& she reads them all!).



2. I became interested in reading more about the life of the Queen and her husband after seeing "Windsor Castle: A Royal Year." Prince Philip is the star of one of the hours of that multi-part documentary. He came across as a down-to-earth man of many interests about whom I wanted to learn more. I purchased this book mainly interested in it as a biography of Prince Philip.
   
   Prince Philip of Greece had a difficult early life. He was the youngest son of Prince Andrea of Greece and Princess Alice of Battenburg/Milford-Haven. His three older sister all married German nobles. The Greek royal family was subject to on-again off-again exile. His parents were separated after their exile. Not having any Greek ancestry, the Greek royal family was in a precarious position in the early part of the twentieth century. Philip had no fixed permanent residence for much of his life before marrying Princess Elizabeth. As a great great grandson of Queen Victoria, he is 550th or so in line for the British monarchy himself. Philip lived with various relatives and went to school in Germany and later Gordonstoun in Scotland. He served in the British Navy and famously was first photographed with Princess Elizabeth at the Royal Naval College. At the Battle of Cape Matapan Philip was manning a searchlight and had the good fortune to illuminate an Italian (enemy) ship resulting in devastating fire being directed at that ship.
   
   Philip and Elizabeth were married in 1947. Elizabeth became Queen upon the death of her father five years later. Philip duties in supporting the Queen have involved endless ceremonial events and public appearances for over sixty years, and continues to maintain a full schedule of public functions into his late eighties.
   
   Author Brandeth take pains to dismiss all claims of Philip's famously alleged infidelity as untrue both by reason of his loyalty to the Queen and by virtue of logistic impossibility. He even explains Philip's absence from the Queen's bed early in the morning on July 9, 1982 when a deranged man sneaked into Buckingham Palace. The lunatic sat on the Queens bed talking to her until she was able to summon her guard. The man later admitted that he intended to commit suicide in the Queen's presence. Brandeth explains that Philip and the Queen normally share the same bed but on that morning Philip slept alone having travel plans that would require him to get up unusually early.
   
   Brandeth places most of the blame for the difficult relationship between Diana and the Royal couple on poor communication and especially to the immature and emotionally unstable Diana. Many very sensitive matters were discussed in letters rather than face-to-face leading to misunderstandings and later causing great embarrassment when those letters got into the hands of the press. Maintaining some privacy while living in the fishbowl of Palace life has been a matter of obsession for the Queen and Philip. Courtiers that have discussed royal personal business or, even worse, written books about the Royals have been completely cut off. The author recalls how the Queen broke off all contact with her much loved governess "Crawfie" after that servant wrote a tell-all book about the Queen's childhood in 1950s. It was to avoid unwanted public disclosure that the 2003 Burrell trial was halted. Paul Burrell, Diana's butler was charged with stealing and selling some of the late Lady Di's personal effects. Just as the trial was about to begin, the Queen remembered a conversation with the valet in which he told her that he holding on to some of Diana's possession for safekeeping.
   
   The author describes himself as a friend of Prince Philip's. While this account can not be considered an authorized biography, the author does include the Prince's wry reaction to various controversies that have surfaced during his long life. On the other hand the Queen remains a distant aloof figure in this biography. Like the aforementioned documentary, where Philip talks directly to the camera about his duties as Ranger of Windsor Park, this book gives a rare look at otherwise inscrutable Prince Philip explaining himself in his own words.
   
   Highly recommended.



3. This is not just a book about the marriage of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip-it is a story of their lives both before and after their marriage in-in sections.
   
   First Section: details about their early lives and details surrounding their parents and grandparents.
   
   First was Elizabeth growining up in England-with her parents the Duke and Duchess of York and then after Edward VIII abdicated King George VI and Queen Elizabeth
   
   Second was Philip born a Greek and Danish Prince but shortly after his birth his family was forced to move to France to live near his uncle George and Aunt Marie.
   
   Second Section: Details their lives as teenagers around the time of WWII
   Elizabeth was forced to live apart from her parents and was sent to live with her sister outside of London. After the war the family was reunited and at 13 Elizabeth met Philip for the first time
   
   Philip lived in France for several years before his mother was institutionalized and his father ran off with his mistress. His sisters help raise him and then sent him to schools in Germany, and England. During the War he was a Navey Man where at 18 he met 13 year old Elizabeth.
   
   The Next several Sections detail their courtship, marriage, becomeing first time parents to Charles and Anne, becoming Queen and Consort and then having Andrew and Edward afterward.
   
   An interesting book with interviews from Prince Philip, Elizabeth's cousin and others that give a detailed account of two interesting people.



4. one of the most beautiful biographies i have ever read . it reavels the humaneterian side of queen elizabith and prince philip . they are like us they love and hate like every ordinary person . mr brandreth is great .do not miss this book



5. Having read a lot of books about the royals, I didn't know if I wanted to read another. I'm very glad I read this one. Enjoyed how it was written. Very witty remarks, a lot of them in parenthesis. Having the book notes at the bottom of the various pages was a great help. One can't help but read them. There was alot of info that I had read before, but Mr Brandreth gave a more balanced view. It was a fun read!

5 comments about Booking Passage: We Irish and Americans.

1. It's hard to define this book. Mostly, it's about the experience of Thomas Lynch and his extended Irish-American family living in Michigan and his going back home to Clare to the relatives still living in the home of his ancestors. That part alone is well worth the read but Mr. Lynch goes much further, delving into his personal, spiritual faith and the schizophrenia of The Church as well as the residue of 9/11 and the chaos, fear and war that has followed, adding a depth I hadn't expected. The writing is lyrical and flows from topic to topic with ease, like an often beautiful, sometimes heart-wrenching journey.



2. "Booking Passage, We Irish and Americans" is a delight. Thomas Lynch's use of language is inspiring. Lynch's observations on Irish and American life in the last three decades are full of wit and insight. This is a great book by a great author.



3. I'd been waiting for what seemed like too long for a third book of stories from Thomas Lynch, but wondered if his Irish-based tales could possibility be as compelling as his earlier works, which were stories about life based on his career in dealing with the dead (in addition to being a writer, Lynch is an undertaker). But again, just as he used the funeral home as a backdrop for stories not about death but about life, Lynch uses Ireland, land of his ancestory and his frequent visits, as the canvas for telling poignant stories about life. Now I'll give friends copies of "Booking Passage" while i wait for a fourth book from Thomas Lynch.



4. Hilarious in parts, I found his diatribe on 9/11, the airport wait between flights, his "rise" to stardom etc. to be egotistical and boring. If he had stuck to Ireland, relatives there, the cottage there, his life in the States and the back and forth between the two, it would have made a better book. I loved it for the brogue and dialogue therein; reminded me of my father who spoke with a brogue imitating my grandparents from Roscommon but it does wander and that's a shame because he seems to have a niche with his close tie to Ireland that could be used again and again in more books perhaps.



5. When three of the sections have these headings: Bits & Pieces, Odds & Ends, Fits & Starts, you get the idea: lots of thoughts mainly about but not always about Irish in America and in the US. Lynch writes well, perhaps too self-consciously (but you could say the same about Beckett, Joyce, McGahern, or Banville) about his place within the past & present Irish identity increasingly available to trans-Atlantic "passengers" reversing the emigration of their ancestors. The strength of this book comes from Lynch's determination to act out a point attributed to one of Brian O Nolan's many literary guises: to be Irish you need not have been born there, merely to claim allegiance.
   
   Comparisons to James Charles Roy's more acerbic accounts of restoring a "castle" in Co Galway and herding about Yanks on a tour, respectively "The Fields of Athenry" and "The Back of Beyond," provide a fine counterpoint to the themes Lynch takes on--a rejoinder in turn to the Niall Williams "back to nature" tendency to romanticize rural Irish life for second-home owners.
   
   The most fluent and unified part of Lynch's collection, apparently knocked about for a while in gestation since about 1970 and added to as life added to Lynch's accumulated experiences revolving around Ireland, mortality, and his place within both realms, the section "Death Comes for the Curate" tracks his priest relative who died early back three-quarters of a century ago in New Mexico, and from this Lynch frames a meditation examining Irish Catholicism from many angles, both in Ireland and its remnants in America. This portion of the book hit home, and worked in its concentration around a central theme.
   
   What worked less effectively was, as the opening paragraph about the chapter headings foreshadows, the scattered organization of much of Lynch's other musings. To his credit he steers clear of "The Troubles" and largely bypasses the cute anecdotes and clever pub banter that sinks many a travelogue about the oul' sod. Yet, in his putting thoughts to paper, he tends--like Montaigne whom he cites--to drift before coming back to where he started, at best. In sections about relatives, the old house he restores, poetry that mattered to his younger and present self, and the irritation aroused by travel and its delays in a post 9/11 world, he is often sharp and worthwhile to learn from.
   
   But in many of these same chapters, the control lessens and you feel as if too many undigested and unrevised ideas crowd out the better prose. The book wanders about mightily, and too much to reward a long sitting or two, although in parts it can be dipped into for a few pages with pleasure. Perhaps I need to re-read Montaigne to acclimate myself to Lynch, but the latter seems to treat the Irish concerns as ultimately as disorganized and fractious as any other Lynch may have. While true for him no doubt, this disorganization makes for less than fluid streams of consciousness on these finely wrought but rather too crammed and caroming essays that leave a reader as often stranded as enlightened. Yet, again, that chapter on Catholicism's superb!