No comments about Charles Edward Stuart: A Tragedy in Many Acts.

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.

No comments about Diana: Fashion and Style.

No comments about Suetonius: The Flavian Emperors (BCP Classical Studies) (BCP Classical Studies).

1 comments about In Memory Of Princess Diana.

1. Do no waste your money on this one. I am a collector of any books on Princess Diana and have read them all. In my opinion this book is terrible. The author is using the guise of writing about Princess Diana to bash Paul Burrell, President Bush and Tony Blair and the Iraq war. He begins to tell you something about Princess Diana then the next thing you know he is off on a tanget about something else. This is a very boring and confusing book. It isn't interesting enough to keep the reader's mind alert.

5 comments about Catherine de'Medici (Profiles in Power Series).

1. Catherine de' Medici is the topic of much controversy and little publication. There are very few biographies of her printed in the English language, so I was very hopeful that R. J. Knecht's would fill in that gap with a scholarly study. However, there is a bit to be desired in this volume. It is more of a survey of Catherine's political career and events in France during her lifetime, than it is a biography. This is not necessarily a fault--however, events are passed over lightly. I was very surprised that some topics were not elaborated upon more, such as Catherine's relations with Mary Queen of Scots. Knecht sometimes does not even explain when a new monarch has come to power in other parts of Europe; for example, Henry VIII of England's death is not noted but in a few lines later, Edward VI is mentioned. And there is not a decent character analysis of Catherine herself.
   
   This book is part of the Profiles in Power collection, so one would assume that it is geared more towards the novice in history, and that would make sense given its brevity, but if one completely new to the era read this book, they may get lost in its sometimes lack of explanation. If one desires a summary of Catherine de' Medici's political tenure in France, this book may fit the bill--but don't have expectations set too high.



2. I agree with "Names and Dates, Names and Dates." I'd forgotten why I hated history classes so much in middle and high school. Two graduate degrees later, and constant readings in sociology, psychology, and history - especially the Italian Renaissance (in which the Medici's played a very important role) I was painfully reminded by Professor Knecht. He knows his specialty, without a doubt, but either needed a few crash courses in effective sentence and paragraph construction or a better editor. The book is so poorly written, one might logically ask why I continued to plug away at it. A testament to my persistence and ultimately unrealized hope that it would magically transform itself somewhere before the final pages, I'm sure.
   
   I didn't mind so much that it had very little information about Catherine specifically and much more about the religious wars and the stirrings of the Reformation. It certainly supplies numerous names and dates - definitely not a book to start with! Sadly, the man honestly cannot write however skilled and knowledgeable he may be as a university lecturer.



3. Half French, half Italian, this 16th century queen of France was a fascinating figure in many aspects.
   This book focuses on Catherine's struggle to survive and maintain herself as the head of the French Monarchy for almost 30 years. Witchcraft,massacres,poison, but also culture, arts, and architecture characterized the reign of Catherine.This book explores such myths, and places Catherine in the 16th century mentality.
   however, I do not believe a 300 page book is enough to explain the life of such a controversial woman who lived 70 years.
   Also I disagree with Knecht when he says that Catherine was an insignificant member of the Medicis clan. She was in fact the legitimate heiress of the Medicis, the great grand daughter of Lorenzo the Magnificent... how is that insignificant? Also Knecht minimizes Catherine's French roots. Francis the 1st of France surely wanted Italian territories, but he also wanted the rich and wealthy Auvergne region in the center of France. Who was the heiress of that noble and rich French family? Catherine herself, from her mother's side.Catherine was indeed countess of Auvergne, countess of Boulogne, countess of Clermont, and Baroness of de la Tour. In other words, she did have royal blood and she was Diane de Poitiers, Francois of Guise, Mary Stuart and the future Henry IV's relative.
   This is a good book for people who have not read a anything about Catherine: it is brief and quite easy to understand. Hopfully there will be a better edition in the future.



4. I'm surprised that the author completely ignored the economic conditions of France during the reign of Catherine. No mention of the economic force played by the Huguenots. Just names and dates. Author took a three-dimensional figure and reduced her to one-dimension. Just names and dates.



5. I agree completely with the previous reviewer from Florida and I, too, would like to know why all of Catherine's children were considered bad. Professor Knecht has done a very admirable job in this well-researched book and it is quite obvious that he knows his subject well. Catherine de'Medici was an interesting woman--a member of the Florentine Medici, but an insignificant one. All that changed when she married the man who was to become Henry II, King of France. Although she may have been a peripheral member of the Italian aristocracy, Catherine was of pre-eminent importance to French history. She was controversial, but, as the previous reviewer states, Professor Knecht was very fair. He explores both Catherine's virtures and faults in a level-headed fashion. This book, however, is far more than a biography of one of France's most controversial and enigmatic figures. It is also a fascinating narrative heavily laced with French history. If you like your biographies a little light, I wouldn't recommend this book. But if you really want to understand this period in French history, and this fascinating woman, I would recommend it highly.

5 comments about Charles: Victim or Villain.

1. This is a run down on Prince Charles' behavior. A single guy(and a future king) cheats with his friend's(Andrew Parker-Bowles) wife(Camilla); then continues to cheat with this same married woman while engaged to Lady Diana.
   Then takes gifts to his married lover against the wishes of Lady Diana. On his honeymoon, tokens of his continuing love affair shows up in Camilla photos falling from his diary and cuff-links(two C's connecting).
   The new Princess of Wales is rightfully hurt and confused.
   This behavior of Charles hardly gets the marriage off to a good start.
   Throughout the marriage, Diana is witness to numerous occasions where Charles(through actions or words) declares his never-ending love for a married woman and continues with his adultery.
   Charles and Camilla showed as much disregard for Andrew Parker-Bowles' feelings as they did for Diana.
   What is especially upsetting is that rather than publicly admit he was a heartless, cheating man, Charles continued to portray himself as a loving husband to Diana and a respectable man who would one day be crowned king. He was willing to let his subjects believe he was an honorable man.
   Not only is the future king a cad, he is a liar as well!
   Besides there is NO evidence showing Diana as metally ill, un-balanced or anything before her association with Charles. As for her tantrums, I would site inmaturity and sheer frustration as the reasons for her outbursts.
   Diana was a normal, sane, healthy young woman prior to her engagement. Her bulminia did not start until after she moved to Buckingham Palace and she realized she was a Lamb to the Slaughter. It was then she realized her future husband did not love her and was very much committing adultery with a married woman. Adultery was something that Charles would continue to practice throughout their marriage.
   What is equally the mark of a cad, is Charles even cheated on his mistress!
   To write a book that basically white-washes Charles' moraless antics, is a disgrace and an insult to everyone's itelligence.
   He is a Villain if I ever saw one!!!!!



2. This book is very pro-Charles which was to be expected. After all, both author and Charles are still alive. Diana can't fight back. And who knows what the truth is anyway?

   There isn't anything really new in this book except details about how news of Diana's death was received at Balmoral, actions of Charles and the Queen then, etc. There are conflicts with other accounts I've read. Was Diana's face damaged? Was an autopsy done in Paris? Other sources said her face was unmarked and body was not autopsied until it was returned to London. It is little details like this that make me wonder about rest of the book. What is the truth?

   I continue to be amazed at the influence the press has in England. Do they really have that much control over the Royal Family? Apparently they just make stuff up and everyone believes it. The Royals are so out of touch and isolated. I think they should just be left alone and out of the newspapers like they used to be.




3. I knew when I picked up this book that Ms Junor was always very anti-Princess Diana - even when she was alive she was very outspoken - and was obviously very pro - Prince Charles. I had hoped though that with the death of the Princess even this hardened lady would present a balanced view of both sides. Instead I was left with the distinct impression that she had swallowed the whole "poor Charlie " line. It takes two to make a marriage and two to destroy it. But her bitterness towards both the princess and the Queen were quite frankly astonishing - especially for someone who used to be editor of the Majesty magazine. This lady has more chips on her shoulder than a totem pole.

   I was horrified when Ms Junor decided she had the right to take on the role of amateur psychiatrist. That for me - was the end. I finished the book - but at the end of it all her superior attitude and downright condemnation of the Princess was appalling. I have no illusions that the Princess was not perfect. But she sold the princess as someone so calculating and evil that it does not equate with anything the rest of the world saw. I am not sure any of us thrown into that kind of limelight at the age of 19 would have coped any better - most of us would not. That does not excuse bad behavior. We all behave badly but most of us do not have "staff" to tittle tattle and exagerate our worst points.

   I enjoyed certain parts of the book and learned a lot more about Prince Charles - assuming that that part of the book is a true and detatched discription. However - having just read the introduction to another biography where the biographer states that it is easy to become self absorbed with the person they are writing about and to loose their sense of detatchment. I feel that Ms Junor did not achieve that.




4. Where does the author get her evidence? First that Diana was first to cheat, second she threatened Camilla Parker Bowles. The book seems to justify the fact that Charles was involved with Mrs. Parker Bowles from even before the marriage and that it was alright because Diana was scheming and nasty to him. It tries to create a spin on the royal marriage favoring Charles and his liaison with Camilla. This is the book to buy if you are ardently pro-Charles and agree that Diana was completely to blame for the breakup of the marriage.



5. This book is very interesting! The author is obviously a GREAT fan of Prince Charles! From interviews that I have seen with the author, I fully expected a Diana-bashing book and I wasn't far from the mark! Just the mere fact that the Princess of Wales is not here to defend herself against these so-called "facts" of Ms. Junor's shows you what kind of diabolical mind the author has! Ms. Junor herself is making quite alot of money writing about the misfortunes of the Prince & Princess of Wales. I should hope that the proceeds for this book would go directly to royal charities and those who are TRUE victims all around the world! Surely Ms. Junor would not want to line her own pockets with this scathing book - or would she? Think on, Ms. Junor!

1 comments about Charles V: The World Emperor.

1. Right from the beginning I wasn't sure what to make of this biography. Kleinschmidt doesn't try to make the story of Charles V more accessible. Rather, his story reads like a recital of facts. There isn't much to the author's writing style, which is much to be desired. Additionally, there isn't as much of Charles V as you would imagine.
   
   Where you would think Charles would be the central theme he is relegated to nothing more than the common thread, sometimes only being mentioned in passing in order to justify that section being mentioned. Most of chapter 2 is spent talking about the various maps that were drawn from the end of the fifteenth century to the middle of the sixteenth century. Perhaps this would be more interesting in a book about maps, but it doesn't belong in a biography of a Holy Roman Emperor. Throughout the book there are sections like this that branch off into philosophical meanderings or useless descriptions that seem to only be there in order to meet the quota of pages.
   
   That being said, what was mentioned of Charles was interesting to read. Seeing him come into power and battling Francis I, the Turks, or the Lutherans helped breathe some life into the biography despite the dry nature the facts were presented. The last chapter was written with the most life as the author summarized the end of Charles' life and future of the Habsburgs.
   
   I am on the fence on whether I would recommend. I am sure there is another more focused and interesting biography on this profound ruler and so would probably not recommend because of this.
   
   2.5 stars.

2 comments about Edward Vii's Children (History/20th Century History).

1. a father who was busy enjoying his life food,drink and women were edward vii's passion his childern were last on his list.their mother one of the most beautiful woman in europe was selfish in her own way ,she denand to be number one in her kids lives even when they married.their parents didn't make sure they would get a good education.must of the kids didn't have fullfuling lives.



2. For five children who included a King, a Queen and one potential Jack the Ripper, there's not a whole lot of interesting detail in this book. (Just kidding -- I know the Duke of Clarence was not Jack the Ripper.) But why are all royalty authors so skittish of coming out & saying that the oldest son had homosexual experiences? All you ever get from other books is just a hint about this. There's got to be information in the Royal archives or in private letters that back this up.
   
   Anyway, getting back to this book, the facts are blandly presented; it gives you an nice overview of the lives, but there's no depth. For instance, I had to read about the middle daughter, Victoria's brief teenage crush on her cousin Tsar Nicholas II, in a totally different book (The Romanovs-Power, Passion & Tragedy). Why wasn't that tidbit included here? Also we learn nothing about her frustration over being kept a spinster in the service of her mother Queen Alexandra, and nothing about her two thwarted romance(s). Was she a masochist, or was it the times, that kept her from fighting back & loosening those bonds? And, again from other sources, I learn that Maud & Haakon VII's marriage wasn't all beer & skittles either, but how bad, or good, was it really?
   
   We don't learn the answer to these questions from this book. So in that respect, it's a disappointment. I don't mean to say I want to read a trashy gossip fest; but this book is just too "nice".

No comments about Memoirs of the Court of George IV. 1820-1830.