5 comments about King John (Yale English Monarchs Series).

1. In this excellent book, W. L. Warren attempts to rehabilitate the image of King John of England. Warren sees a gulf existing between the reality of John's reign and its popular perception. He writes, "It is a gulf that I have attempted in this book to bridge--reassessing the reign of King John in the light of the most recent research, and presenting it in a way that is, I hope, both readable and sound" (xi). In KING JOHN, Warren succeeds in this aim by producing an accessible text that illuminates the complex rule of John.
   
   Warren begins by analyzing the source materials and the biases that the sources contain. He explains how depending on which sources you believe, John was either an industrious and clever, yet flawed, monarch, or a foolish and wicked do-nothing king. Warren convincingly argues for the former portrait of John.
   
   John's reputation is much lower than that of his father and elder brother, but Warren's book shows that in many ways he was much like them. John was far from being the inept successor to great men. John had Henry and Richard's talent and energy, but he also had their heavy-handedness. John inherited a dire need for silver and an unstable political situation on the continent from his brother. These things coupled with John's inherent distrust of his barons robbed him of much of his continental territory. John's reign, however, was not merely one of failure. Though he didn't regain Normandy, he did consolidate power over Ireland and manage to frustrate Philip's seemingly realistic dreams of conquering England. Warren's portrayal of John is much more interesting than his reputation as the wicked king. KING JOHN is an excellent example of biography, both convincing and readable.



2. 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.



3. 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.



4. 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..



5. 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.

1 comments about Mistress Anne: The Exceptional Life of Anne Boleyn.

1. The extraordinary life of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII, has long captured imaginations. Is the young woman a seductress who steals the King's heart away from frumpy Queen Katherine of Aragon, or is she unwittingly tangled in the intrigues and passions of the 16th century English court?
   
   Carolly Erikson, who also wrote The First Elizabeth, does a fine job of pulling together what historical evidence about Anne exists. However, the reader may sense that she too often relies upon such statements as "It cannot be known for sure what Anne was feeling during the month of her confinement," or "While no writings exist today, we can guess that the King was frustrated with Anne's haughty behavior..." Biography is a tough genre to write if little actual evidence survives, so Erikson relies heavily upon legend, hearsay, and extrapolation.
   
   Nevertheless, she paints a historically accurate picture of life in King Henry VIII's court. Her vocabulary is stunningly varied, and the images she elicits with her prose are quite powerful. For example, this passage, in particular, shows her narrative voice:
   
   "The court of Henry VIII seethed with intrigue. Snakelike the coils of conspiracy and disloyalty wrapped themselves around every courtier, powerful or vulnerable, ultimately making him sacrifice everything-his reputation, his income, even his friends and relatives-for the sake of inching higher up the greased pole of preferment."
   -Carolly Erikson, Mistress Anne (40)
   
   Overall, I'd recommend this book for a great in-depth introduction to what we know about the ill-fated Queen, who waited for almost a decade to marry the King, only to be wrongly convicted of adultery and treason, and beheaded at the Tower of London two years into the royal marriage.
   
   The last laugh, however, belongs to this strong woman, who was used by many as a pawn. Her daughter, Elizabeth I, ruled England single-handedly, retaining her maiden-status in an era when that was almost inconceivable. Perhaps she learned a few lessons from her mother, Anne Boleyn.

2 comments about Anne Boleyn..

1. I must admit that it has been quite a while since I read this. It was always my favorite biography of Anne Boleyn - I thought it brought her to life more than most that I have read. Bruce has some very interesting speculations and insights. I was quite impressed at the care she took in placing certain incidents which other writers have inserted, apparently almost at random, during or after Anne's life. The prime example is the conversation between Henry VIII and Jane Seymour regarding their future children - this is often placed after Anne's imprisonment or death, but Bruce carefully locates it before any accusations were even made against Anne.
   
   This has now be superseded by Eric Ives' the Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, but it is still very much worth reading.



2. In my quest to gain biographical information on the six wives of Henry VIII for historical novel purposes, Ms. Bruce's book on Henry VIII's second wife was one of the first to which I turned. Though it is difficult to prove a great many facts about Anne Boleyn, what Ms. Bruce has written is well supported by gripping evidence. Her extensive travel and study has rewarded her readers with a deep sense of knowledge concerning the knight's daughter-made-Queen and a good understanding of the rise and fall of Queen Anne. However, Ms. Bruce's biography has been succeeded by more recent works on Anne Boleyn, and the date of the studies conducted may point a reader in search of the hard facts in a different direction. Still, Bruce's "Anne Boleyn" is a wonderful and well-written source.

1 comments about Crowns in a Changing World : British and European Monarchies 1901-36.

1. The generation that passed between the death of Victoria and the accession of her son, Edward VII, in 1901 and the death of Edward's son, George V, in 1936 was one of great change not only in the British monarchy but in the state of monarchy throughout Europe. Edward's personal power was subject to the close limitations of the unwritten English constitution, but his cosmopolitan personality and astute knowledge of international affairs gave him great informal authority, especially since the emperors of Germany and Russia were his close relations. George, though likeable, shared neither his father's eminence abroad nor his extroverted style, and was much more subordinate to his ministers - and during the early part of his reign, as a result of the Great War, the empires of Germany, Russia, and Austria ceased to exist. The author of this well-researched study, who has written a number of other books and articles on modern European royalty, follows the complex interconnections among the royal houses of Europe during this period, pointing out just how much diplomacy depended before the War on personal relationships between monarchs, and also just how little such things came to matter during the subsequent Age of Dictators. He includes a great many photographs and illustrations, many of which are new to me, as well as a (necessary) genealogical chart and table of accession dates.

No comments about The World's Greatest Royal Scandals (World's Greatest).

No comments about History of King Charles II of England.

3 comments about Secret Memoirs of Princess Lamballe.

1. Marie Antoinette was not a jewelry hungry, power hungry, clothes horse. Actually, she did more than any other Queen of France to try to help her people. What other queen ever bothered to see that pensions were paid, and what other one gave up her Queen's purse so others might have it? Contrary to so many cliche's and assumptions, this book tells Marie's story, and the story of France during her time, so very well, endearing us to the truly humane and compassionate being she was.



2. The recollections of an eye-witness to the 'bloodiness' of the French Revolution.
   The author loved her unfortune friends,Marie Antionette,and Princess Lamballe,and her obseravtions make an interesting comment on the actual events,as opposed to the imagined events of later historians.
   
   Catherine Hyde's facts has all the ingredients needed for a pure historical account of the French Revolution.Her personal bravery,dressing as a boy,a lantern boy,a dresser,slipping in and out of the Tuilleries unrecognized,her collison with the most important National Assembly figure,Danton.Her journeys to England,Savoy,Parma,carrying messages and pleas from M.A.
   I can see a wonderful Movie in here with the main character as a Scarlet Pimpernel type character.
   This true story would make an interesting film,and I think Shirley Henderson could portay Catherine Hyde admirably.
   Is there a Producer out there willing to take the challenge?



3. It gives you a different angle to this so often written about era. Very interesting & instructive.

2 comments about Augustus: Godfather of Europe.

1. This was an enjoyable read, but it's hard to think of as either historical nor archaelogical scholarship. The narrative is filled with suppositions about what the people thought and felt. Entire conversations are retold as if as if a reporter was present to record what was said. The Notes at the end of the book don't really support statements made in the text. It seems Mr. Holland has relied on Ronald Syme's The Roman Revolution (1939) and the writings of Appian, Pultarch, Ovid, Seutonius, etc. Very little modern scholarship is referenced.
   
   In the Preface and the last chapter "The Godfather of Europe", Mr. Holland takes takes jabs at current American foreign policy in Iraq. Analogizing that the Emperor and the American President carried the same motive to police the world. The author is constantly looking over his shoulder straining to draw comparisons between the Ancient and present day worlds. At times, the effort makes you chuckle. More often, it's just a distraction. The other thing the author does, as implied in the subtitle, is declare Augustus an ancient of the modern day mafia.
   
   As a story based on the ancient, contemporaneous writings Augustus entertains. As history, this biography is not an important contribution to our understanding of its subject.



2. Following the success of NERO, this biography of the Emperor Augustus by Richard Holland is a triumph.
   
   I found it brilliant and provocative, rarely following in the footsteps of other biographical historians but treading a new and bold path. Holland thinks between the lines of what antiquity has left us in the form of historical records and paints a three-dimensional picture of Augustus as an elusive but daring leader, the outsider who changed the face of Europe, a man who would not look out of place amongst the politicians of today's Western governments.
   
   Highly recommended!

No comments about Henry VIII and His Court: A Historical Novel.

2 comments about Louis XIV.

1. I bought this book in the bookstore at Versailles. After my tours of the palace and the gardens looking for ghosts and wondering what life was like and what was in the heads of the people at court of Louis XIV. This is a very readable yet scholarly history book. It doesn't get into the head of Louis XIV quite so well as Antonia Fraser was able to do in her biography of Marie Antoinette, "Marie Antoinette The Journey". Louis XIV doesn't quite become a real person in the pages of this book however it is a beginning. This is one of the better written histories I have found.



2. Levi's Louis XIV is an odd book. After the introductory first chapter, the next seven chapters proceed chronologically from his birth to the affair of the poisons, although Levi does jump around within that chronological order. The final five chapters are arranged topically on Versailles, the king's religion, war and foreign policy, Popes and Protestants (one would think that this chapter should have followed the one on the king's religion), and finally the king's character, health and death.

   
   This is not a very good book. It is jammed with facts but many of them are not right. For instance, on pages 263 and 264 Levi discusses Marshal Vauban who has been a heroic character throughout the book. On page 263 Levi says that Vauban had been appointed a member of the Order of the Holy Spirit in February 1708 with all kinds of special permissions by Louis XIV. Yet on page 264 Levi says that Vauban died in March, 1706. (He actually died in March, 1707.) Either this is sloppiness on the part of the writer or bad proofreading by the publisher. And this is one example out of many of apparent misstatements of fact or sloppy publishing.
   
   Some of Levi's sentences are unreadable. On page 269 in discussing the death of Louis XIV's grandson the duc de Bourgogne, he writes the following: "No fasting was involved, and doctors were not being provoked by being told against their judgement (sic) by a miscellany of priests and royalty that the danger of death was imminent, although it was." This is just one example of some of the monstrosities in this book.
   
   Levi makes a pair of linked outrageous claims in this book. First, he says that Louis XIV was not the son of Louis XIII but was a product of a union between Anne of Austria and Cardinal Mazarin. Then, he compounds this claim by saying that Louis XIV was aware that Mazarin was his biological father. Previous authors (John B. Wolf and Claude Dulong among them) have said that Mazarin and Anne of Austria became and remained lovers after the death of Louis XIII. And many people have wondered about the possibility of Louis XIV being produced by a one-night stand between Anne of Austria and the consumptive, possibly homosexual Louis XIII. Levi comes out and states that Louis XIV (and his brother) were not produced by Louis XIII. And he makes a strong case, but, given his problems with facts discussed above, can we trust him?
   
   And, if Louis XIV was aware that his mother had had an adulterous relationship with Mazarin, how did that affect his attitude toward monarchy? Louis XIV is widely regarded as the leading proponent and example of absolute monarchy based on divine right of kings and Levi says that it was all based on a lie that Louis XIV was aware of. Levi makes very little of this argument or of the psychological impact it may have had on Louis XIV, but instead he talks about Louis XIV as being uncertain, timid, shy, etc. This is a missed opportunity at best.