No comments about William Wykeham (Hambledon Continuum).

No comments about The Earl of Wharton and Whig Party Politics, 1679-1715 (Studies in British History).

No comments about Lochiel of the '45: The Jacobite Chief and the Prince.

No comments about The Irish Literary Movement (Character Sketches).

No comments about John Hall & His Patients: The Medical Practice of Shakespeare's Son-In-Law (History).

No comments about William Sheppard, Cromwell's Law Reformer (Cambridge Studies in English Legal History).

No comments about John Singleton's Grand Tour, 1815-1817 (American University Studies. Series XIX : General Literature).

No comments about Christy Brown's Women: A Biography Drawing on His Letters: Includes the Founding of Cerebral Palsy Ireland by Robert Collis.

No comments about Oliver Sheppard (1865-1941: Symbolist Sculptor of the Irish Cultural Revival.

3 comments about The End of the House Windsor: Birth of a British Republic.

1. This book is down right treasonist and anyone that reads it and agree's should be tried aswell. I beleive this book should be banned and I'm very angry that Amazon has it available



2. I am not by temperament a royalist. Three and a half centuries ago, given the circumstances of the time, I would have been a Commonwealthsman, though nearer John Lilburne than Cromwell. So I'm open to persuasion that it might sometimes be worthwhile tearing up old constitutional arrangements in favor of shiny new ones. The French did it once a generation for the past two centuries, and look where it got them. Still, there might be something to be said for it.
   
   The survival of the British monarchy is an historical accident. Britain was never defeated in a European war, which is what induced the birth of most European republics. Nothing daunted, Prof. Haseler stands high in the ranks, all two dozen of them, pressing for a British Republic. He starts his book by observing - I paraphrase - that Monarchy is bad. This applies in particular to the supposedly house-trained British variety, which turns out to be responsible for the decline of the nation to a point where we have only the fourth largest economy in the world and a derisory international presence. On the other hand, a Republic is good. He reprises this in various keys, pointing out that there is no such thing as Englishness let alone Britishness, but not to worry, that will be no problem once we come into the EU apotheosis (what would God's Englishman or Freeborn John have said to that?). He goes on repeating it for 200 pages. He may be right; a centuries-old constitutional monarchy may be the worst system, except for all the others.
   
   Things have moved on since the book was written and parts of it now look quaint. He seems to think that the Diana cult, not yet crowned by martyrdom when he was writing, might provide the leverage that he wants against the monarchy. He's wrong; it's all part of the same thing. In truth the British polity has its problems but the monarchy is among the least of them (the exact opposite of 350 years ago). The moral is: if it ain't broke, don't write a book on how to fix it. Sorry if I sound flippant, but the republican movement, such as it is, will have to do better than this if it wants my vote.
   
   To the reviewer above: if people want to write books like this and other people want to read them, it isn't treasonable, you nincompoop. That's one of the things we fought about all those centuries ago.



3. Ignore the picture on the cover. This is NOT a "Diana" book and it was written years before she died.

   This is an extremely well-written critique of the institution of the British monarchy and it's survival to the present day at the heart of a supposedly democratic system of government. It's author is a Professor of Government Studies and also chair-person of Republic (the UK Republican Society).

   The book systematically demolishes traditional arguments put forward by royalist constitutional experts, and clearly puts forward the case for a smooth transition to republican government under a written constitution when the present Queen's reign comes to an end. It attempts to explain the failure of the short-lived republic which followed Britain's 17th century revolution, and exposes the negative influence of the monarchy on the nation's social, political and economic well-being.

   Although it is now several years old, it is still a very important book for anyone in Britian interested in constitutional reform. It is also good reading for Americans who come to Britain as tourists and think that the monarchy is cute, quaint and entertaining. The monarchy is none of those things. It's power, although cloaked in the language of democracy is still real and threatening.