No comments about Eileen Gray: Compact Design Portfolio.

5 comments about The Royal Families of Europe.

1. Every so often, some author or editor suddenly discovers that Europe is still full of monarchies, as well as pretenders to various thrones, and a new, updated book gets written, giving details on the historical background and present-day situation of each royal personage. This is not necessarily a bad thing, though many such books are written too breathlessly to be of much serious interest. Hindley is an unapologetic monarchist who believes a constitutional (as opposed to absolute) sovereign is the "most trouble-free method available of choosing a head of state." He begins with those countries where monarchs are still politically involved, even though their countries are now republics (he's especially partial to royal informality in Sweden), and continues with an assessment of future prospects in constitutional monarchies. (Personal wealth helps; Prince Hans Adam of Liechtenstein probably could buy or sell his diminutive nation outright.) It's difficult to work up much enthusiasm for the various Balkan monarchs, all of whom were overthrown with prejudice, and France represents a singular case, with a history filled with republics interspersed with monarchs. Ranier of Monaco, though somewhat autocratic in his actions, did wonders in making secure the political and economic independence of his state, and the restoration of the Spanish royals was actually a step toward restored democracy. In fact, Hindley is a fan of King Juan Carlos, who took a very strong personal role (for a modern European monarch) in putting down the attempted military coup of 1980. The author's style is factual and highly readable and -- except for a number of regrettable lapses in copyediting and proofreading -- this volume will do very well until the next one is published.



2. I am quite relieved that I borrowed this book from my local library before deciding whether to purchase it for my own extensive library.

   The egregious editing and factual errors (which, in my days in the publishing business, would have led to pink slips!) are unforgiveable.

   Avoid this book at all costs!




3. It can be difficult for Americans to find reliable information on current and former European royal dynasties. The Windsors dominate the scene, obviously, and we monoglots soon discover that English-language media cover other royal families only sporadically.

   Then, once every ten years or so, a book comes out that focuses on once-and-maybe-(or maybe not) future sovereign dynasties, like the Greek, Italian, German, or French royal families. These books, however, seem usually to fall into one of two categories: fawning, or sneering ('Look at these losers who think they're still kings.')

   Fortunately, Geoffrey Hindley's useful resource falls into neither of these categories. And that makes it well worth the read.

   Hindley is an unabashed monarchist, and takes the position -- sadly rare these days -- that monarchs and their dynasties really do have something useful to offer their nations and their people. In a wide-ranging discussion of currently reigning royals, he shows how the various monarchs relate to the day-to-day business of their nation's governments, and measures their degree of influence, or outright power, both in public and behind the scenes.

   His coverage of the pretenders is also thorough and informative. He wrestles with the questions of the Russian and French succession, the constitutional position of the never-abdicated King of the Hellenes (aka Greece) and his family, and reports on what may well turn out to have been the first steps toward restoration in Bulgaria.

   As other reviews have noted, there are a few minor errors in history and genealogy. But these are more in the nature of typos, not serious flaws in research or argumentation.

   The late Austrian writer Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote of the natural inability of a North American to take monarchy seriously, either as a system or a philosophy. Yet for millions of Europeans (to say nothing of Asians and Africans), monarchy plays a central role in their history, their present, and most likely their future too. This very useful book helps us understand why, and perhaps makes it a little easier for Americans to overcome our natural barrier to something that is, after all, part of our history too.




4. This is an excellent summary of the present state of European royals at the beginning of the 3rd millenium. Its nice to have information on which Hapsburg has married which Oldenburg and what the present state of the monarchist cause is in various countries in Eastern Europe. Historically the book is somewhat flawed by some sloppy research and/or editing. For example, the chapter on the Belgian Royal Family is fraught with errors. King Albert I is referred to as Alfred at one point, and there are numerous genealogical mistakes (Albert I was nephew, not son, of Leopold II). I don't regret buying the book for its information on present day royals, but I would not rely on it for research on their predecessors.



5. Mr. Hindley's book is an excellent introduction for novices to the Royal Houses of Europe. Unfortunately, for those who have studied the subject, especially the genealogical side, it is fraught with errors which detract from the better aspects of the book.

No comments about Churchill.

No comments about Women in World History: Readings from 1500 to the Present (Sources and Studies in World History).

1 comments about Stately Passions: The Scandals of Britain's Great Houses.

1. This is a fascinating account of thirteen stately homes and the scandals which occurred in them. The book includes the homes of royalty and the aristocracy, starting with Balmoral, the Scottish home of the present day Queen Elizabeth 11, and is the site upon which, in 1128, the Scottish King David proposed the building of an Abbey. The building was added to, remodelled, burned down, attacked by various armies and was the site of murders, and scandals, as were the other sites listed in this book. The author has added wonderfully entertaining snippets of the goings on in all of these premises, right up to and including the 20th century, which makes this book a most interesting read for admirers of these wonderful buildings and the people who inhabited them, throughout the centuries.

3 comments about The Godwins: The Rise and Fall of a Noble Dynasty (The Medieval World).

1. The author does a good job describing the Rise and Fall of the Godwin family. It rose out of obscurity and ended for the most apart at the infamous Battle of Hastings. The hard part about piecing together information on the Godwins is that there's so little information out there. Most of it comes from books written a couple hundred years after their fall or from the viewpoint of the Normans which you don't really know how much information from them you can trust. I do like was how the author did point this out when ever he brought up a Norman point he was also able to counter it with other explantations that sounded just as reasonable like why Harold didn't wait before attack William's army or decisions Edward the Confessor made and things the Godwins did and their background (as much as there was). I liked reading more about the rest of the Godwins, his brothers and sisters and parents.



2. "The Godwins" by Frank Barlow is an excellent account of the turbulent history of England in the half-century leading up to the Norman Conquest, charting the rise and fall in fortunes of the dynasty established by Earl Godwin and which reached its zenith with the succession of his son, Harold, as king in 1066.
   
   Though the book is less than 200 pages long, Barlow nevertheless is able to write in great depth about his period, evoking a sense of the turbulent politics and the rapidly shifting fortunes of his subjects. He describes the rapid rise of Godwin and his family, from relative obscurity in the reign of Aethelred 'the Unready' (978-1016) to power and wealth under Edward the Confessor (1042-66), and then finally to the kingship itself with Harold's succession in 1066. His account of the events leading up to the Norman invasion, as well as of the Battle of Hastings itself, is thorough and detailed in every respect.
   
   The sources available to the historian for the 11th century are fuller than for earlier periods, but nevertheless remain somewhat fragmentary. Barlow, however, does an excellent job of drawing them all together in a scholarly yet readable manner. Indeed these sources are constantly referenced throughout the book, with a list of notes at the end of every chapter. Moreover, where there are uncertainties or discrepancies in the material, he is careful to highlight them. To help the reader keep track of the various players, there are four family trees, depicting both the Anglo-Saxon and the Danish royal lines, as well as Godwin's own family. Also included are 12 pages of black and white plates, reproducing images of the coinage of the age in addition to key scenes from the Bayeux Tapestry.
   
   All in all, "The Godwins" is a truly excellent book; indeed, one of the best on the subject of King Harold and the Norman Conquest. Also highly useful for understanding the social history of eleventh-century England is Richard Fletcher's "Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in Anglo-Saxon England", while at the same time a useful counterpart to Barlow is David C. Douglas's "William the Conqueror", which deals with the same period but from the Norman perspective.



3. My wife is a Godwin and during the Queen Elizabeth II corination the Godwins were invited. By reading the book you can see why and it has been a big help while doing our family history.

5 comments about King John (English Monarchs).

1. An excellent history book, factual as a text book but reads like a novel. Hollywood could never dream up a life or character so complex.



2. King John has the reputation as being the absolutely worse King England has ever had. Accused of lechery, murder, treason and much more, John is looked on as an absolute failure, and is warped out of all recognition as the bad Prince John of Robin Hood. The only bright spot in his reign is John's grant of the Magna Charta, which is looked on by many as the ultimate foundation stone upon which English and American freedoms rest.
   W.L. Warren, in this exhaustively researched book, paints a full picture of the life of this least successful of English kings. Dr. Warren points out that much of John's bad reputation results from writer's contrasting him with his brother, Richard the Lionheart.
   This book gives us the reality of King John. It doesn't excuse him. It does explain him.



3. This book shows the "dastardly" King John of Robin Hood fame in a more realistic light. He is seen to be an enlightened ruler who reviewed the law courts and other English institutions and who truly, of all the previous Plantagenet kings, preferred England as his inheritance. He is not the cowed king who is seen to have signed the Magna Carta, but a king who was faced with the accumulatiom of misrule by previous Plantagnet rulers including his brother Richard the Lion Heart. This book does not hide the King's less likeable attributes, avarice, lustfullness, a bad temper, a vengeful nature, but then Richard Coeur de Leon had that too. This book shows that John was no worse than his predecessors. Read also "Eleanor of Aquitaine" by Alison Weir, which corroborates this book very well..



4. I was a little hesitant about ordering this book at first for fear it would be dry and complicated. I was very happy to discover it was neither. It is well researched and well written. Warren gives you a good feel about the period and the challenges John faced. I even found myself asking "what would I have done in his place?" This book busted a few of the "Bad King John" myths as well as some of the "Good King Richard" ones. This is a very readable book provided you have an interest and a little knowledge about the period. If you are looking for a "Robin Hood" type story this isn't it. It's not a page turner but nor should it be. This is the story of a complex man during a complex time and Warren did a great job of bringing it to life without making it dull.



5. W.L. Warren begins this biography with an explanation of how and why King John ended up with the dastardly reputation we all know from Robin Hood stories and other popular fiction. John, Warren says, suffered from a confluence of factors that have rendered a slanted and warped portrait of him. Historiography methods of the past concentrated almost entirely on contemporary chronicles, practically ignoring administrative records and other types of extraneous material. John especially suffers under this kind of examination, since the chroniclers who wrote about his reign were all either poorly informed, outrageously prejudiced, or both.
   
   John is mocked with the name "Softsword" for having lost his hold on the French domains his father, Henry II, and his brother, Richard I, worked so hard to keep. Warren points out, however, that such far-flung territories could never have been maintained, and, even had Richard lived, the French outcome would probably have been the same. Far from being a military do-nothing, John is the founder of the Royal Navy. Warren marvels that a nation that came to treasure its naval superiority as England did could so completely vilify the founder of its navy.
   
   But this book is no whitewash, either. John was duplicitous and grasping and didn't trust anyone who wasn't beholden to him. He surrounded himself with baseborn hangers-on, excluding and alienating the barons of his realm. He took money for dispensing justice and then still ruled against the side that paid him. He was cunning and conniving, and was known to issue decrees that said one thing while secretly issuing instructions that ran exactly counter to what he wrote.
   
   Yet this same king instituted something that, to historians, is even more important than the Royal Navy: the systematic keeping of government and court records. Before John ascended the throne in 1199, English government recordkeeping is spotty and haphazard - a frustratingly obscure and incomplete source for the study of history. But from 1199 on, these same records emerge as a rich and authoritative resource. Hmm, almost as if John knew the chroniclers weren't going to treat him fairly...
   
   Another myth that gets busted in this book is the one about King John's being forced to sign the Magna Carta. While Warren concedes that John had backed himself into a corner by running roughshod over his barons, he explains that the Magna Carta was simply a compromise brokered between him and his opponents. Nobody was holding a gun to his head - and wouldn't have been even had guns been invented. And John had the last laugh when, days later, he made England a fief of the Pope, who reciprocated by declaring the Magna Carta null and void.
   
   When I started reading this book, I had a fairly negative attitude about King John. By the time I finished, I still didn't like him much, but I had a new appreciation for him as a brilliant, complex, and probably tortured soul who tried to do great things and occasionally succeeded.

2 comments about The King's Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby.

1. Let's face it, women of the medieval times aren't too well known, and those that are, such Eleanor of Aquitaine, are hidden behind shadows and are really only noticed through the male figure(s) in her life.
   
   That being said, Jones and Underwood did a great job in illustrating just who Margaret Beaufort really was. Not only do they capture the influence that she had and the political maneuvering that she had to do, but they also capture her life after her son became king, showing her role in religious houses and orders as well as the universities.
   
   A great bio for a great woman. Anyone studying the Tudors should read this book. Anyone, for that matter, interested in England in the fifteenth century must read this book. Margaret Beaufort's role was just too important.



2. Lady Margaret Beaufort was the Countess of Richmond and Derby and the mother of a king, Henry VII, whose coronation put the finishing touches on the War of the Roses. Looking at her life is a wonderful way to examine this pivotal period in English history as she was a pivotal person, herself, during this period. Sometimes she was a pawn in the plans of others but often she created her own destiny, while all the time remaining a creature of politics and a survivor at a time when very many did not. The authors have done their research well and provide a very detailed account. Often the financial details can be very revealing and occasionally monotonous to the casual historian but always important. This is a very good study of an important woman.

4 comments about The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer.

1. I read this book three years ago and thought it was fabulous. Then tonight I learned that it is fictional. I don't know whether I should laugh at myself or write a letter of complaint (to whom, I'm not sure). When I read this book in hardback, there was no markings or the fantastical artwork that now adorns the paperback cover to indicate that it was fiction. But, I'm glad to see (based on other comments here) that I wasn't alone in believing that Dr. Joyce Reardon and her sidekick Stephen Rimbauer, characters who so believably introduce and tie up this fictitious diary, were real people. Anyhow, beware. This is not a real diary. It is fiction. Enjoy it as such.



2. The only thing wrong with this book was that it was edited by the Professor. I know she thought she was doing us all a favor. BUT IT WAS NO FAVOR! When you purchase a diary and resell it to the public, then you do NOT edit it to your own idea of what is in "good taste". Taste is a personal thing all in itself. Diary entries are very personal things, ideas and thoughts that are locked away. I can understand taking out repetitive items, such as entries on how to make chicken soup sixteen times..., but she did not need to be the arbiter of personal taste for everyone else on what was appropriate for us to read! Putting those entries that she thought where not appropriate on line was not making them available to everyone because not everyone HAS access to the Internet without going to a Library, and if the entries are the sort the editor says they are, you would not wish to read them in a public terminal, where others could read over your shoulder! That is my only complaint. I have not even bothered to find out if the edited entries are still available on the Internet or not. It just irritated me that a Diary was edited! Just my personal view.



3. I have to say that I bought this book but I was left with mixed feelings about it. Maybe I wanted Rose Red to be better than the television, of course, the diary helped explain the obvious sexual relationship between Ellen and her African nurse/maid. I didn't care for the obvious lesbian relationship between them. It just seemed natural after all. It was hardly much of a marriage. We never do get our questions answered about what happened to the house and why people vanished all of a sudden. It makes you wonder and leaves you frustrated by it all. The book tries to solve those questions but I don't think they ever do.



4. book was a bit hard to get into, but once you start to read it, it's even harder to put down.

5 comments about Eleanor the Queen.

1. Although the writing is fair in this book, I was disappointed by the lack of depth to the characters, including Eleanor. This is one of the most fascinating queens in history, whose story is multi-faceted. However, this book only scratches the surface of Eleanor's life. It does not develop the relationship between her and Henry (or their sons, for that matter), which is a major pivoting point in Eleanor's life. I did like Eleanor's prison companion, Kate, and thought her character was not as flat as most were in this book. And what about the Princess Alys, who was betrothed to Richard from a young age? This book doesn't even go into the possibility of the rumored relationship between King Henry (Richard's father) and Alys as being the reason Richard called off the betrothal. I would not recommend purchasing this book unless you can find it for a quarter or less.



2. Though Ms. Lofts prose is lovely, there is no substance to this novel. Eleanor of Aquitaine was perhaps the most influential woman in European history, culture, and politics until Elizabeth I of England, yet Ms. Lofts ignores most of Eleanor's most important contributions to Western Heritage (e.g. troubadour poetry and her patronage of Fontevrault). Ms. Lofts inexplicably ends the novel with the departure of Richard I on the Third Crusade, which means that Eleanor's role as Regent is utterly ignored. Personages who had significant roles in Eleanor's story are never or barely mentioned, such as Empress Maude and Thomas Becket. The information provided in the work seems designed for a much younger reader than the style of writing indicates.



3. I think Norah Lofts is an excellent writer of historical fiction & this book was very well done, however, it is not a story with many happy moments for Eleanor of Aquitaine. I usually will re-read books that I enjoy, but I find this one too sad to want to read it again - Eleanor just can't get a break, it seems. I've read Jean Plaidy's Plantagenet books involving Eleanor and she's presented in a less accurate but somehow more cheerful way in those books. This is certainly a more accurate account, but just not something that will put many smiles on your face.



4. Eleanor of Aquitaine must be one of the most interesting women in history. Her intellegence, her legendary beauty and her joint crusade with her first husband, the King of France would make for an amazing story alone. Now add to it that she was also the wife of King Henry II of England and the mother of Richard the Lionheart (and SEVERAL other children) and you have the makings of an epic story filled with love, betrayal, political intrigue and so much more! Instead, Lofts tells a nice story though uninspiring which touches areas of excitement briefly toying with them and then instead wanders down the a road that is interesting but dull. This is my third Norah Lofts novel and I am still seeking the same talent and style I found in A Wayside Tavern. I am again left disappointed and wondering how the same woman wrote that book and this.



5. This is an interesting work of historical fiction by a noted writer of historical fiction and gifted storyteller, Norah Lofts. the author capably details the life of Eleanor of Aquitaine, one of the most famous and celebrated women of the middle ages. Touted by the troubadours of her time as being a woman without compare, Eleanor of Aquitaine could certainly be held to be the first feminist.

   Married first to the pious King of France, Louis VII, she bore him two daughters and went with him on an unsuccessful Crusade, where she was to have a number of adventures. Stifled by the King's somewhat misogynistic advisors, she and the King would come to a parting of the way after fifteen years of marriage. No sooner was she divorced and returned to her Duchy of Aquitaine, than she met eighteen year old Henry Plantagenet, who was to become King Henry II of England. Nearly a dozen years separated them but this was to be no bar to their marriage.

   Eleanor and Henry were to marry, and she bore him numerous sons and daughters. She lived happily with Henry for many years, until she discovered that he had a mistress, the fair Rosamonde of legend. The break in their relationship would eventually result in the estrangement of Henry from his sons and the imprisonment of Eleanor for nearly eighteen years.

   This is an excellent work of historical fiction, filled with the political intrigues of the day, historical events and personages, and a story that has withstood the test of time. It is a book that those who like well-written historical fiction will, undoubtedly, enjoy.