3 comments about Cupid and the King: Five Royal Paramours.

1. I thouroughly enjoyed this book. Princess Michael's writing style is chatty and open, and she chose five interesting women to study. It's a great "beach read" for lovers of biographies, history or even royal gossip.



2. There have been royal mistresses for as long as there have been royals, but only a few have become legendary. And so a real-life royal, Princess Michael of Kent, has chronicled the lives of five of the most famous (or infamous) maitresses en titre in history. Not brilliant, but "Cupid and the King : Five Royal Paramours" is a good starting point.
   
   Nell Gwyn grew up in the gutter, the daughter of an alcoholic prostitute. But through bawdy charm and talent, she became a comedic actress on the London stages, and caught the eye of Charles Stuart. Though she wasn't as high-born as his other ladies, "Nellie" retained a place in Charles' heart until his death, and was faithful to him for the rest of her short life.
   
   Madame de Pompadour was an exceptional beauty who caught the eye of Louis XV, and was soon placed as his official mistress. Since she didn't like sex, she made herself invaluable to the king as a comforting friend, and created a salon where the cultured and artistic people of the time could gather. Unfortunately, her devotion to her king cost her her life.
   
   Marie Walewska was groomed from childhood to marry well, and help her family. But after being married off to a disgusting old aristocrat, the beautiful Marie met her girlhood hero -- Napoleon. For the sake of her country, Marie became Napoleon's mistress, and soon fell in love with him. But his ambition to create a dynasty ended their affair.
   
   Lola Montez was never what she seemed to be. After a nasty divorce, the Irish girl renamed herself, became a "Spanish" dancer, and lied constantly. She also snagged the heart of Ludwig I, king of Bavaria and terrible poet. As she bled the country dry, the angry inhabitants of Bavaria rebelled against their king, and sent Lola packing for the USA...
   
   Lily Langtry was a tomboy, a prankster, and her first taste of polite society was a disaster. But after marrying, she captivated London (and Oscar Wilde) with her beauty and charm. And then she captivated playboy Edward VII, his naive young cousin, and eventually reinvented herself as a respected actress.
   
   Yeah, it doesn't really say much that hasn't been said before. Many books have handled the history of courtesans and royal mistresses, and Princess Michael doesn't add much that is new to the mix. It's basically five short biographies, going over the entire lives of the subjects with plenty of interesting facts, but only a few new insights.
   
   Her writing style is solid enough, exploring the different personal and political facets of the mistresses, the kings, and their families. It's worth noting that even though the author is royalty, only the last of the bios reveals anything about royalty, upper-class society, and the effects of a royal mistress. The rest of the time it's typical "religion disapproved, pious queen suffered, money was spent" and so on.
   
   And four of the five have some great quality that sets them apart -- patriotism, intelligence, charm, or just loyal fun. But Lola Montez doesn't fit in. Despite Princess Michael's gushing, she seems like a callous, ditsy gold-digger compared to Madame de Pompadour or Lily Langtry.
   
   Though it doesn't add any new information, "Cupid and the King : Five Royal Paramours" is a pleasant read for people who are looking for juicy pre-tabloid gossip.



3. Finally! A book for all of us who love those trashy historical romances! At least, those of us who love the historical parts. I found this book extremely well-researched as well as an easy read. Powerful men and the women who love them are always fascinating and Princess Micheal of Kent does a fantastic job in giving us those juicy details to keep your attention focused and your eyebrows raised, as well as enlightening you on significant historical events in Europe in the 17th through the 19th centuries. I highly recommend this book for those of you who don't like to admit being a trashy historical novel reader....this is one book you can proudly display on your bookshelves!

5 comments about King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel (Ballantine Reader's Circle).

1. "Wanna read a bad book?" my friend asked. I wished I had had the foresight to answer "no." Unfortunately, I didn't, and I read all of Jonathan Kirsch's King David. This book is worse than bad, it's an embarrassment. If there's an original idea in the book, Kirsch does an incredible job of hiding it among his numerous quotations or, I should say, "adaptations" from Samuel. The scholarship is paper thin; Kirsch slavishly relies upon the work of others and offers nothing new himself. Basically, Kirsch takes the magnificent KJV translation of the story in I and II Samuel and "punches it up" with Newsweek style. Kirsch appears to pride himself on reading the stories skeptically, as one would hope of any modern journalist reading Samuel, and peppers his comments with phrases such as "as the biblical authors wished to remember him [David]," "so it would seem," and "theological spin." However, except for questions raised by others, Kirsch is one of the most credulous readers of this story I've ever met. He buys almost everything the author tells us about David and the others in this story. As just one example, Kirsch dutifully reports the description in I Samuel 13:3 of Amnon's cousin, Jonadab, as "a very subtle man." And what incredibly subtle advice to Jonadab give his cousin? That Amnon should rape his half-sister Tamar in his own bedroom after setting up the meeting in such a way that all the royal family would know what was going on. If this is "subtlety," then Micky Spillane is John LeCarre! Now of course, it is subtle if Jonadab were in cahoots with someone else in order to destroy Amnon, but Kirsch hasn't the imagination to explore that possibility - or even the possibility that the rape never occurred but its report was concocted for other reasons. On the other hand, if Jonadab was actually trying to help Amnon, then to buy Samuel's description of him as "subtle" is the apex of naivete. Indeed, you'd think Kirsch would ask: is the author being ironic? But no, that would be to expect too much from Kirsch.
   
   Rather than waste your time on this book, let me suggest two others. If you want to accompany a masterful literary scholar reading the story of David, buy Robert Alter's illuminating The David Story. If you want to examine the story of David from the perspective of a modern, secular historian at the top of his craft, buy Baruch Halpern's David's Secret Demons. These are two very different books, and many who like one of them won't like the other. But happy is the reader who can appreciate both. If you choose to read neither Alter nor Halpern, don't waste your time on Kirsch. Just go get a copy of the KJV at your local motel and read Samuel for yourself.



2. I listened to this book on tape as read by the author himself.
   
   This is one of what appears to be a significantly developing genre of books in the area of theology and Biblical History, designed to be read by the general populace to put in their hands what modern scholarship is saying.
   
   This book does this reasonably well for anyone who is unfamiliar with such terms as Modern Bibical Criticism, J theory, Court Historian etc.
   
   What is not so clear to the average listener is that the primary sources drawn from such as Howard Bloom, Wellhausen and company are considerably from the more liberal and secular camps and that there exists a large body of more conservative material that deals with thses issues with somewhat different conclusions.
   
   There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. What I find distrubing in these types of Historical Overviews - turned novel is that the hybrid product, while purporting to be factual, uses the change in genre to present the material as somehow more certain or less controversial than is really the case. What's wrong with being a little more deliberate in making the source literature drawn upon a little more diverse and truly allowing the reader to enter into the dialogue and interact with the issues, rather than being led to believe that things are as neat and tidy as a reading of this book would seem to indicate to a reader otherwise unfamiliar with the field?
   
   Those concerns expressed, I did find this to be an interesting and worthwhile listen (read). Old Testament history has been a weakness for me and this did help to fill in some gaps in terms of the what some of the modern scholarship has been giving. In addition, it did present David in terms that helped to place him historically and, as much as the author's approach could allow for with all of its provisos and doubts, somewhat personally.
   
   Listen critically to this work. It seeks, in my opinion, to gloss over some of the ommissions in terms of conflicting material, by making the format flow like a historical novel and a reader can be carried away with that and walk away feeling they have a strong grasp on all that is available in this field. They will not.
   
   Life of David by Arthur Pink would be a good contrast work to see some of the other camp and provide some balance.
   
   Interesting read, but again, read criticically and ask yourself what you're not being told in the midst of it.



3. "King David" introduces the reader to the most central figure of the Old Testament. Author Jonathan Kirsch does an excellent job of fleshing out this legendary figure from the sketchy stories recorded in the Bible. Kirsch follows the biblical writings very closely, unlike other tomes on Biblical subjects which tend to discount the Scriptural accounts. Kirsch starts out with the Scriptural texts and then explains them in light of scholarship concerning the identity and purpose of the various sources and how each may have influenced the final draft of the story. He talks often of the Court Historian, believed to be the primary author, along with later editors who may have supplemented or altered the original text.
   
   This book does a good job at exploring how King David, with all his faults, could be "A man after God's own heart." It tries to part the mists of history to find the flesh and blood man behind the ancient legend. It weaves the scattered Biblical accounts together to form a biography. It explains how David is central to all Biblical characters who follow him.
   
   One standard by which I measure a book is whether it wets my appetite to read more on the subject. I am now reading the David narratives in the Bible. By this measure it passes with flying colors.



4. Kirsch's account of King David's life is highly questionable to say the least. The book is full of conjecture. The flaws in the author's reasoning are apparent on the face of every page. His perception of King David's relationship with God and country is severely unschooled and a danger to follow. Anyone interested in appreciating the true story of "The man after God's heart" would be better off reading the Biblical accounts. Don't waste your money on this quack historian who seems committed to justifying base persuits with the flaws of the great men and women of Biblical antiquity.



5. It is very evident that the motive of the author was to debunk the Old Testamentin general, and the biblical David in particular. In doing so, he appears to reference all his material with notated references to the index. Howefver, if you examine these references, many are stated as factual material. In reality, they were previously written by another individual,
   and their validity is highly suspect. He uses other versions of the Bible to support his position, and roughly 150 books which he eviscerated passages to support his positions. A fairytale!

5 comments about Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence.

1. The book is written well enough which is why I am giving it two stars, however its the content that speaks volumes...volumes about diddley squat. I tried to read this book with an open mind, however the more I read, the quicker I came to the conclusion there was no conspiracy to commit murder against Diana. How did I arrive at this conclusion? I used plain, old common horse sense and took a closer look at the real facts that are known about the case. Sorry, but I just don't buy into the author's rip current theories. Diana died in a tragic car crash at the hands of a drunk driver, being heckled by bunch of vultures who were salivating over every juicy morsel in her life and due to the fact that both she and Dodi were not wearing their seat belts. The French way of taking their time with severe trauma patients and crawling at a snail's pace to the hospital certainly didn't help matters either. If there was a murder and cover-up, where's all the others that move in the same circles who have been oh so done away with or was she the only one since JFK? Were there some mysterious events that occured? Of course, there are always mysterious events surrounding ANY death when it can't be explained down to the last minute detail. If you are into "way out" conspiracy theories this may be the book for you, otherwise there are other quality books out there on the life and tragic loss of Diana. I highly suggest shopping around.



2. I read this book as I thought there was a lot more to the death of Princess Diana then has ever been brought out. And, according to this book, there is. Since the house of Windsor is in reality German and the house of Stuart is Scottish and Diana is a descendent of the house of Stuart, it is more then understandable why certain members of the house of Windsor would want her out of the way since she was more entitled to the throne then Prince Charles. Then you have the military-industrial complex which, in reality, rules this earth. When Diana started the campaign against landmines, she was a very visible and known world wide person who was able to bring to the forefront the damage that landmines do to innocent people. Since Diana's death I have not heard anymore talk about banning landmines anywhere in the world.
   
   It is brought out that Henri Paul worked for MI6 and the CIA. That could have been in as much as money was deposited into his bank accounts that was a lot more then he was making at the Ritz. It is also alleged that his blood sample was switched with another sample taken from a suicide victim at the morgue. But, has anyone thought that Henri Paul was drinking that night knowing that he had a mission to perform and that was to make sure that Princess Diana was killed in an automobile accident? It is entirely possible that was the case. As for the carbon monoxide in Henri Paul's blood sample, it has been brought out that he was smoking cigars at the Ritz prior to leaving on his last ride. That in itself will cause an increase of carbon monoxide in the blood.
   
   There are many unanswered questions to the death of Princess Diana and we will never know the answers to them. If MI6 and the CIA want to cover up their involvement in the accident they most certainly could and no one will be able to find out if they were involved or not. The intelligence agencies of a lot of countries know how to keep something from being linked back to them and this could or could not be the case here.



3. The book was written in the form of a trial and the reader is the jury. Well, if I was on that jury, I would have voted for the defense. And if I was the judge, I would have thrown the case out after the prosecution finished his case for lack of evidence. The title is perfect "Hidden Evidence" as the evidence was so hidden that I couldnt find it in the book. The author makes many hypothesis but does not have any REAL support for his hypothesis.
   
   I believe that we have not heard the full and real story of the death of Diana and was hoping to find it here - but I was disappointed. Stay clear.



4. My beloved Princess Diana was most definitely murdered by the Establishment. This book gives hard facts to support this statement and points out inconsistencies within the investigation, both in France and England. Assasinations like this have been going on since the beginning of time, since John the Baptist. If you loved Princess Diana you must read this book. It will make you so sad to realize what was done to her.



5. Oh, for God's sake! What utter drivel. Diana wasn't bright enough to implicate anyone more substantial than a poorly trained manicurist.

   Here's a conspiracy question to think about -- if Diana was so committed to the anti-landmines issue why did she chose Dodi Fayed as a consort? Some of his relations are huge arm dealers. Hey -- maybe THEY knocked her off!

5 comments about Once Upon a Time: Behind the Fairy Tale of Princess Grace and Prince Rainier.

1. You can't go wrong with a biography by J.Randy Taraborrelli! Again very well researched and again you get hooked after the first sentences.For all who want to know more about the actress Grace Patricia Kelly who became the Princess of Monaco and her life with her husband and family behind palace walls,I highly recommend this book.



2. Taraborrelli was clearly fascinated by his primary subject, Grace, but it appears it was Prince Rainier whom he truly fell in love with.
   
   He never once mentions Rainier's notorious infidelities, which began as soon as Grace married him, and continued until she died. According to Wendy Leigh's new book "True Grace", she strayed too, but her affairs started off as quid pro quo for Rainier's constant mistresses (and continued from isolation and loneliness).
   
   This omission is profoundly prejudicial to Grace because it makes it look like she was just too shallow to give up her attachment to her movie career and thus made herself morbidly unhappy with her new life in Monaco. In fact, she did struggle with that loss, but her greatest heartbreak in Monaco was that she married a philandering, obnoxious, overbearing, insensitive and dismissive popinjay of a prince.
   
   Taraborrelli should have waited for Rainier's death to write Grace's biography. Maybe then he wouldn't have been so tempted to whitewash Rainier into the caring, tender, appreciative and supportive husband he most certainly was not.
   
   Shame on you Randy.



3. This book details the lives of Grace Kelly and Rainier Grimaldi otherwise known as Princess Grace and Prince Rainier of Monaco both before and after their "marriage of the century."
   
   Grace Kelly was born in Pittsburgh, PA. In 1929 to Jack and Margret Kelly. She had an older sister Margaret (Peggy) and older brother Jack Jr (Kell) as well as a younger sister Elizabeth Anne (Lizanne). From the time that she was young she wanted to be an actress. When she was a teenager she modeled to pay for an acting school and thanks to her uncle George got some early work on the stage. Soon after she started making movies such as High Noon (with Gary Cooper), Mogambo (with Clark Gable) and won an Oscar for her portrayal in The Country Girl. It was because of this that she was offered the opportunity to go to Cannes to the Cannes Film Festival. During her time in France she also was offered the opportunity to go to Monaco to visit Prince Rainier little realizing that the visit would change her life.
   
   Prince Rainier was born in 1923. His mother was the illegitimate daughter of the Prince of Monaco and married a French Duke in 1920. Rainier had a younger sister named Antoinette. When Rainier was six his parents divorced and he and Antoinette were mostly raised by their grandfather. Rainier was educated in England and France and in 1949 became heir to his grandfather's throne after his mother and sister renounced it. He became Prince of Monaco in 1950. During this time he was single, but dating an actress. Shortly before Grace Kelly's visit he and the actress broke up.
   
   Several months after the meeting between Grace and Rainier he came to the United States. Grace and Rainier used this time to better know each other and shortly after Christmas they became engaged. After several months of negotiations they where married in Monaco. Nine months later they had their first child, Caroline, and five months after that Grace was pregnant with Prince Albert. They later added to the family with princess Stephanie.
   
   The marriage between Princess Grace and Prince Rainier was not always the best, but ultimalty they loved each other and their three children. When Grace was killed in 1981 after a car crash Rainier mourned her for the rest of his life.



4. This book gets 5 stars for research, 5 stars for presentation (simply a photo of Grace in THAT wedding dress justifies a book existing) and 4 stars for a good read; It's not that it could have been any better, it's just that the story is ultimately sad. However, I think the subject matter was taken very seriously by the author, and unlike other reviewers here, I consider the thoughts expressed to be well thought out and supported by the material that was uncovered in the process, including that from interviews. What other material is ever likely to be uncovered on this subject?? This book is better than 3.5 stars.



5. Like Jackie Kennedy, Grace Kelly was born to a very privileged life in Philadelphia and was a debutant before she was a Hollywood Star. Cool, poised, aloof, and classy she was the blonde counterpart to Kennedy's dark mysterious allure. But her fairytale life had no happy ending and despite its glamour was all too human.

5 comments about An Uncommon Woman - The Empress Frederick: Daughter of Queen Victoria, Wife of the Crown Prince of Prussia, Mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.

1. A very well written and interesting book on Empress Frederick who's mostly nowdays remembered in relation to her domineering mother Queen Victoria and her psycho eldest son Kaiser Wilhelm II. Her childhood was very interesting and it was fun to read about her courtship and marriage to a man she actually loved and loved her and how the death of her father impacted her life completely. Another wonderful addition to anyone's collection of royal biographies.



2. This was a great biography that made you feel the happiness and sadnest moments in Empress Frederick's life time. Although I must admit there were moments in the book, particularly when Kaiser Frederick as well as the Empress herself were on their death beds, that made me want to box the ears of Kaiser Wihelm if he were still alive today!



3. Hannah Pakula did it again in another superb biography of one of the last great princesses in the sunset of European royalty. The high-minded, brilliant, passionate, beautiful oldest daughter of Queen Victoria was a woman fit to rule in her own right and yet she was shackled by the narrow, rigid Hohenzollern court. The very liberalism with which her father Prince Albert indoctrinated her ended up working against her ability to influence German political affairs in a positive way. Her great love for her husband and their passionate relationship is captured as well as the tragic dimensions of his death. It is horrible how Vicky dies, and especially the way her awful son treated her. A book that shows that sometimes marrying the handsome prince of your dreams is not enough. Highly recommended!



4. An Uncommon Woman is an excellent, first rate biography of Vicky, eldest daughter of Queen Victoria who, through marriage, became the Crown Princess of Prussia, and then Princess and later Empress Frederick of the German Empire. She played an influential (and one wishes a much more influential) role in German, and more broadly European, history during the latter 19th to early 20th centuries. Vicky strove to move German politics towards a more liberal, democratic, parliamentary form of government, but was successfully opposed by the autocracy of Chancellor Bismarck and even her son, who eventually became the Kaiser. The author persuasively implies that had this "uncommon woman" been able to prevail, European history may have benefited. The book succeeds as both an intimate, full-fledged account of this remarkable woman, her family members, and the many important historical persons of the times, as well as a comprehensive history of the creation of the German Empire, the rise of autocracy and militarism, and the lead-up to World War I. The writing style is excellent; the author is exceptionally skilled at presenting a thoroughly well-researched life of Vicky and detailed history of the times in a highly readable, well paced narrative. One of the most engaging and informative biographies I have read. Highly recommended.



5. You will feel great sympathy towards Vicky, the Empress Frederick, who was an unfortunate hostage to the intrigues of the German court. Sympathy will soon give way to awe at her courage and determination to do her best while having to perform the impossible: being all things to all people.
   
   Vicky was seen as the catalyst for change in Germany. Her parents, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert did not like the autocratic, militaristic way in which Emperor Wilhelm I was running Prussia. Instead, they visualized a united German nation with a government much like that of England. Their plan was to sow seeds of liberalism and constitutional monarchy through their daughter and her marriage to Wilhelm's son, Prince Frederick (Fritz). In preparation for the eventual match, Vicky was schooled in politics and German life by Prince Albert. Eventually, she and Fritz would be Emperor and Empress of Prussia, and could bring about German unity.
   
   Little did Vicky know that upon arriving in Berlin, she was at a disadvantage from the start.
   
   As the daughter of Queen Victoria, she was encouraged to retain her Englishness yet was expected to be a Prussian wife and princess. Her efforts to raise her eldest son Willy as Prince Albert had raised her backfired. Her tendency to over-criticize (a trait passed on from Victoria) turned the young Wilhelm away, and he grew up under his thoroughly Prussian grandfather Wilhelm. Otto von Bismarck had seen his own chance to manipulate the future emperor, and along with the groveling royal court, Willy was turned into a bombastic power fanatic.
   
   Her relationship with Fritz was not seen as loving, but as an English princess scheming to Anglicize the House of Hohenzollern. Vicky was painted as "die Englanderin", unfaithful to Germany and a demon on the shoulder of her husband, whom she 'manipulated'.
   
   Hopes that Fritz's mother, Empress Augusta, would watch over Vicky were dashed. Augusta was known to be very liberal and free-thinking, unusual for royal women of the time. In her they thought they had an ally, but both the Queen and Vicky would be sorely disappointed. The once-progressive Augusta had seen her marriage to Emperor Wilhelm unravel over the years, and as a result she became a bitter, self-absorbed woman. She gave Vicky little support in her new role.
   
   When they finally became Emperor and Empress, Vicky and Fritz had precious little time to implement any real changes. Fritz died from cancer of the larynx three months into his reign. Upon his passing, Vicky was left alone and devoid of support or influence. Your heart cries at the unfairness of brilliant minds wasted, while Willy becomes Kaiser Wilhelm II - egotistical, manipulative, and dangerous.
   
   Thankfully, Vicky did not live to see the destruction of the Hohenzollern dynasty when Wilhelm II pulled Germany and England into a devastating world war. After fighting his own relations across Europe, he headed into exile, never to see the throne again. Albert's catalyst did indeed create a change, but not in the way he had expected. Germany would be unified, but the reigning royal house would fall from power, never to recover. -MandysRoyalty.org

3 comments about George III: America's Last King (The English Monarchs Series).

1. I am not a historian; I am a fan of history. I know enough modern history to recognize skillful writing, accomplished research and craftsmanship. Jeremy Black's book qualifies in all these categories. William Hays excellent review of this biography in the Wall Street Journal is a wonderful, concise summary of Mr. Black's book. Since it is unlikely I can match his fine description, I will confine my comments to cautious criticism rather than perform an academic dissection.
   
   American readers should be warned that this is not an easy book to read. Mr. Black, who is a professional historian, write to an audience familiar with British politics that understands title inheritance (sixth earls), peer promotions (and name changes), Parliamentary procedure (ministerial nominations and dismissals) and English history (the Glorious Revolution). It is unlikely that American readers, who rarely have this kind of grounding, will understand these conditions upon opening his first chapter. Nor had I managed to greatly expand my knowledge base when I closed his last chapter. The biography would gain greatly from a brief introduction to late eighteen century British politics, even at the risk of boring our English cousins.
   
   It is also not easy to read because Mr. Black's sentences are occasionally confusing and his paragraphs disjointed. Tighter editing should have corrected this problem. Perhaps his editors were intimidated by his academic position. I am not. A competent reader recognizes good grammar. A sentence that requires three readings qualifies for either better editing or waiting until one is sober. This doesn't happen often but it does with regularity.
   
   I was quickly lost upon encountering the different orders of the King's bedchamber. A search through several internet sources was no help. Is the lord chamberlain superior in rank to the master of the groom? Perhaps it makes no difference. However, being curious about such matters left me cast ashore without resources. The Order of the Garter placed me in a similarly abandoned state. And I must say, at a minimum, I wondered why offices were named for intimate adornments (robes and garters). This are not meant as great criticism. It is simply that unsophisticated readers such as me are disadvantaged and would appreciate a brief introduction to the Georgian political world.
   
   American readers will be slightly disappointed in Mr. Black's discussion of how Colonial politicians related to George III. Thomas Jefferson is mentioned occasionally as is John Adams. Both spent time in London and left original source documents. Yet I wondered if they were indeed snubbed. I find it unlikely although the same stories continue to be told. Jefferson is known to have manipulated truth to suit his purposes, and Adams is a prejudiced, judgmental and sometime unreliable journalist. I wanted to know if George III did, in fact, slight them, and if so, why. He would likely have left a note of such a performance I would appreciate Mr. Black's comments.
   
   Yet this book is extraordinarily instructive. A careful reading of Mr. Black's biography yields an excellent assessment of George III. He ultimately appears as a steadfast, conscientious man thoroughly devoted to his wife, religion, country and duty. In short, he is the consummate royalist, and Mr. Black goes to great extremes explaining exactly why. A Freudian analysis will probably explain more. Surely some internal medicine specialist will eventually diagnose why this uniquely admirable and unfortunate man suffered so terribly and how he might have been more humanely treated in his declining years. After all, if we do not try to profit from our mistakes, reading history is a useless exercise in arrogant commentary. I highly recommend Mr. Black's biography and only graded it as four stars based on some minor concerns about my lack of preparation and his writing style.



2. I was very well satisifed with the book. It was very enlightening. It was Hard cover and made very well. Thank you so much.
   
   Sincerely
   
   Diann Geary



3. It is not a book for someone who doesn't know anything about George III.
   It is not for begginers. But it is very good book to get to know George very well. What he was thinking about politics, religion, etiquiete . But especially very well is described his relationship to his ministers.

5 comments about The Last Days of Henry VIII: Conspiracies, Treason and Heresy at the Court of the Dying Tyrant.

1. I found this book was not very reader-friendly. It was interesting, but not interesting enough for me to finish...



2. In response to the fellow that gave this book a 1-star, one cannot possibly understand the important political maneuverings in the final days of Henry without explaining details of his reign, of which I feel was the point of the book. I also did not mind the review of other parts of his reign because it included interesting primary sources.
   
   This book is a good starting point to understanding the Tudor political atmosphere and why it is how it is in the wake of Henry's death, backed with good solid sources of letters and financial records. It is also remarkably readable and interesting.
   
   The only thing I didn't prefer are the conjectures of Henry's ailments. At this point it's just a guess - and I'd prefer to just have the symptoms stated instead of a guess stated like a fact.



3. This book does a remarkably good job of presenting the facts about the final years of Henry VIII, a time when political and religious factions were vying for control over the course England would take after Henry's imminent death. I've read a lot about Henry over the years but this book taught me many things about him that I never knew before. This book contains an overview of the political and religious situation towards the end of Henry's time and also presents many interesting new findings and details you probably won't read anywhere else. It's written in an erudite yet relaxed style that is easy, even entertaining to read, and feels like listening to a lecture by a skilled history professor with a sense of humor. This book is a valuable and very welcome recent addition to the world's historical knowledge of Henry's time. I heartily recommend it to anyone who shares my fascination with Henry VIII or English history in general.



4. This book was extremely disappointing, especially for a person well read in Tudor History. The title is very misleading. I thought this book would examine in depth the final years of Henry's reign. Theses final years were full of scandal, intrigue and death but the book read like a summary of his whole reign. There are plenty of other books that do this and do it better (Alison Weir for example). It's pages and pages of he said, she said quotes followed by summaries of crucial events that surely deserve more description. If you are looking for a thorough historical analysis of the final years of Henry, save your money.



5. at last someone has ventured to give Henry's insanity a medical label,Cushings Syndrome,which encompasses alot of pathologies,from alcoholism to an uncontrollable desire to kill your advisors,even one's wife,not to mention obesity and including that overstuffed gassy feeling.This is not to mention the numerous diseases and frequent out break of plaque that Henry would be susceptible to,although he had a place to flee to get some fresh air.Hutchinson proclaims Henry,the English Nero,(maybe even Caligula),that's why British actors play degenerated Romans and Greeks so well in the movies.The history of the British Monarchy is so loaded with these sociopaths,that you can be a lunatic on the stage,and seeing as you're wearing a toga or centurian outfit,noone suspects that you're actually playing an English Monarch.The scholarship for this book is so thorough i well deserve a lashing for even attempting to review it.With the wars of the roses over and nothing left to war over but a few acres of land in Europe here and there,it's was time for henry to tackle the final frontier that being correct religious and political thought as seen through the eyes of Cushings Syndrome,(and alot of other mysterious symptoms).shakespeare sums it up well in Richard the third."our arms and battlements hung up" replaced by the lovers couch and the lute.Better hope that the you didn't design the couch when Henry's bulk and constipated flatulence renders it in pieces.You won't be able to put this book down.If henry had caught you reading this book in 1540,"no comment"!!!What a shame that Henry's unrivalled military skills and courage are sometimes overshadowed by the bad treatment he gave his wives.

1 comments about Magic Moments: The Greatest Royal Pictures of All Time.

1. The subtitle says "The Greatest Royal Photographs of All Time" which is difficult to imagine since they were all taken by the author, a photographer for The Sun. There are some good photos here; I wouldn't classify any of them as `great.' The choices are limited to the last 30 years which eliminates the exquisite photos of Cecil Beaton, for example. Of redeeming grace are the cutlines (photo IDs) that share private and off-camera moments between the Royals and Edwards. Separate sections on both Diana and Camilla in addition to Charles, Philip, the Yorks, surround a justifiable emphasis on the Queen.

1 comments about Catherine Parr: Henry VIII's Last Love.

1. It was dangerous to be married to Henry VIII. His first wife was cast away and died prematurely; the second was beheaded; the third died in childbed. When Henry was casting about Europe for his next wife, Christina of Denmark is supposed to have quipped, "If I had two heads, one should be at the King of England's disposal." Fortunately for his fourth wife, she was merely divorced (and outlived Henry); but the fifth was beheaded; and the sixth too had a brush with the king's deadly wrath. Only by her wits did Catherine Parr survive.
   
   In the first biography of Catherine Parr (1512-1548) in a quarter century (since Anthony Martienssen's), Susan James approaches her subject as more than just the sixth queen of Henry VIII (which is the context of books like Antonia Fraser's, Alison Weir's, and David Starkey's). The present book is a new, slightly shortened edition of the 1999 biography Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen. The footnotes of the earlier book have been relegated to the end, and gone is the last section on Catherine's brother William Parr after her death, as are the appendices, including the love letters of Catherine and Thomas Seymour and a discussion of the painting previously thought to be of Lady Jane Grey. What remains is a lively (if abruptly ended) account of Catherine Parr's life, rich in detail about her before, during, and after her reign as queen.
   
   It is a Victorian misconception that Henry married Catherine for her nursing abilities--but she was well-versed in the medical arts of that period. She also had a humanist education normally given to noble boys at the time, since she was tutored in the same group as her brother, her sister, and their cousins, all under the keen eye of their mother Maud Parr. (Maud had been widowed young and took advantage of the independence this allowed; she was also a lady-in-waiting to Katherine of Aragon, who, ironically, was probably Catherine's godmother.)
   
   Rather, Henry became genuinely attracted to Catherine when she was still married to Lord Latimer (her dying second husband) and in the service of the princess Mary. No doubt it helped Henry with his competitive spirit that Sir Thomas Seymour was also courting the soon-to-be widowed Catherine. And it was perhaps key that Catherine (unlike Anne of Cleves) didn't offend Henry's sensitive nose: "she carried with her small jewelled boxes of lozenges flavoured with liquorice or clove or cinnamon for sweet breath."
   
   The notion of Catherine as Henry's nurse gives the impression--wrongly--that she was secure in her position. She certainly found her niche in the royal family, making peace between its warring members and restoring her stepdaughters Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession (she'd had practice with her Latimer stepchildren, and this part of the traditional view is correct). And she made a good and competent regent when Henry was making war in France--almost too good, though, because her conservative enemies (including Bishop Gardiner and Thomas Wriothesley) began to conspire against her. Ever since the break with Rome, Henry had been growing steadily more conservative in his religious views, although he tolerated Catherine's progressive beliefs and her choice of his younger children's tutors (enthusiastic reformers). She'd had to keep her beliefs secret during her previous marriage, especially when she was a hostage in the 1536 Pilgrimage of Grace protesting Henry's dissolution of the monasteries. But now as queen, she felt the freedom to read forbidden books and argue with the king--tendencies that the conservatives exploited in their efforts to overthrow the queen.
   
   When the conservatives contrived to have Catherine arrested, she had her forbidden books destroyed and then took to her bed, sick. She was probably more sick with fear than anything, but the ploy brought Henry to her, and she expressed her fear of his displeasure and eagerness to make amends. The next day when she was permitted to visit him, Henry baited her for another argument, but she demurred, saying that she had only argued with him to distract him from his health troubles and to learn from him. This savvy appeal to his self-concern and vanity had the intended effect, and Henry received her back into favor--and into his bed. Wriothesley and the guards were not informed, and when they came to arrest the queen, Henry publicly humiliated them. The conservatives thus fell from power, and into their place came the reformers, including Edward Seymour and John Dudley, who would wield power during Edward VI's reign.
   
   Catherine, too, had influence with the new king, until she alienated him by her ill-advised affair and hasty marriage with Sir Thomas Seymour. It was, finally, a marriage for love long frustrated--but it was fateful all around. Catherine herself died in childbirth (and the child appears to not have survived infancy); Thomas Seymour went to the block; and her stepdaughter Elizabeth suffered a blow to her reputation and nearly lost her life.
   
   Susan James has written an excellent scholarly biography of Catherine, illuminating her motives and passions and highlighting her influence on the future Elizabeth I (who shared with Catherine a particular "restraint in the face of religious excess"). Catherine Parr comes across as a formidable woman, a match for Henry VIII, and a role model for her stepdaughters.

4 comments about King Zog of Albania: Europe's Self-Made Muslim Monarch.

1. Ahmet Zogolli (Zogu, King Zog) is one of the great 'characters' of the early twentieth century. Born into a powerful clan in Northern Albania, he was destined to be a leader of men from birth. But Zog wanted to be more than just another petty warlord, he wanted to be a King. Jason Tomes has done a yeomanlike job of turning this 'myth' into a real person, he has shown him (as much as possible) with all his faults and gifts; trying his best to see through the smoke screen that swirls around him.
   
   The man who at 22 was a colonel in the Austro-Hungarian Army, Minister of the Interior at 24, President at 29, King at 34 and ex-King at 45, is not an easy one to pin down. Like Albania during the second half of the twentieth century, little was published or known of the goings on during the early days of the Republic/Kingdom. Even today, few people could tell you much about Albania, much less find it on a map. It was the only country carved out of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1 that did not have a nationalist movement. The country was created more to keep it out of the hands of Greece and Yugoslavia than anything else.
   
   Under the Ottomans, the valleys were divided up into separate administ- rative area that were each ruled by a Bey who then reported to a Pasha who had power over a larger district. Albania was made up of more than six districts one of which was Kosovo. When the Balkans were divvied up at Versailles, Albania ended up over 90% Albanian, but, leaving more Albanians living outside of the country than in. The Greeks wanted the South which was Greek Orthodox, and the Yugoslavs wanted the north which was Roman Catholic (as part of Croatia).
   
   Zog managed to set-up a government in Tirana (which was the middle of nowhere) and stage manage a government by playing off the different Beys against each other. He relied heavily on a gendarmarie that was primarily made up of his historical supporter (from the Mati Valley). While holding off both the Greeks and Serbs (Yugoslavs) he became more and more indebted to the Italians and finally lost his Kingdom to Mussolini in 1939.
   
   As an ex-King he only was acknowledged by Turkey and Egypt, and during his time in England during WW2 he was never given any recognition or money for guerilla warfare from the Allies. The country was handed to the communist insurgents under Enver Hoxha (with a lot of help from Stalin and Tito) at the end of the War. He finally died a recluse in the south of France.
   
   Tomes shows the tragedy of how Albania never was important enough to anyone but the Italians (and then as a colony) for Zog to be able to create a viable government. He talked as if he wanted to create a constitutional monarchy, but first he had to create a country and an educated middle class. He was not altogether altruistic, since he probably stole half the money that came into the country as aid from the Italians, but then he strikes one as a realist and put himself in the forefront whenever he could.



2. Noel Malcolm calls it fantastic - this should be enough of a reason for anyone who has interest in Balkan history and politics to read this book. Well researched, balanced but witty and with a tat of the usual Western cynical eye describing Balkan events, people or politics. I doubt there is a more well researched book ever written, in any language, on King Zog and the period of the Albanian Monarchy.



3. In hindsight, it was probably inevitable that King Zog of Albania would be driven from his throne in 1939. A British diplomat who worked with Zog found him amusing, but believed the King would probably end up assassinated. The conditions in Albania made that a very likely fate. It is a time and place well described in this groundbreaking biography of King Zog written by Jason Tomes.
   
   When Albania broke from the Ottoman Empire in 1913, it was a poor and rural country. The Ottomans had forbidden the teaching of the Albanian language in the schools and many of the people were illiterate. There had been very little done in recent years to develop the country and it was isolated from neighboring Europe by its mountainous terrain and perhaps because it was largely a Muslim country.
   
   The Ottoman system of benign neglect did nothing to discourage the clannishness of the Albanians. Europeans were skeptical that there could even be an independent Albania. Zog saw that it was necessary to make Albanians into citizens, instead of clansmen. This would not be an easy task. The "average Albanian knows nothing about nationality," Zog said. "He has always looked up to the head of his tribe, or his Bey, as the supreme authority."
   
   Ahmet Zog was born in 1895 in Mati environs. He spent some of his adolescence in Istanbul, soaking up the political atmosphere of the Young Turks. He returned when Albania was liberated and later fought alongside the Austrians against the Italians who were occupying part of Albania. The Austrians, who had designs on Albania, considered the young chieftain useful enough to keep in Vienna in case they would need him after the First World War. Later, Zog staged a coup d'état with the help of Yugoslavia and, during his reign, he made Albania into an Italian satellite state.
   
   Zog picked up foreign languages and some sophistication that many of countrymen didn't have, but he also needed to maintain his Albanian roots. Zog was born the son of a Mati Chieftain and his clansmen were his power base. As described in Edith Durham's "High Albania," northern Albania was the land of the blood feud, a place reminiscent of the West Virginia of the Hatfields and the McCoys, where people asked not what their neighbor died of, but who had killed him. His clansmen were both credits and debits to him. It was with their help (and well distributed gold) that Zog was able to overthrow the republican government of Fan Noli. Yet, even when he was trying to introduce laws outlawing blood feuds, he was obligated to participate in them to keep face with his clansmen.
   
   The story of Zog's reign is mostly one of manipulation by the Italians. The Greeks and Serbs were both interested in carving up Albania, but the Italians were the neighbors with the most money. The Italians built roads and sold the Albanians weapons (often hopelessly obsolete) and made Zogist Albania into a puppet state. For his part, Zog got a good deal of loot, including funds for "a white silk tunic with gold frogging, epaulettes...a white fur hat with plume, a black cloak, and white patent leather boots with gold spurs." Besides looking the part of a king, he became rich as one by often getting the better part of a deal, as when he pocketed 300,000 lira selling the Italians inaccessible forestlands in Mati. He always regarded refusing a bribe as looking a gift horse in the mouth, Tomes writes. After Zog was exiled from Albania, he moved from country to country burdened with the many cases of gold that he had acquired during his regime.
   
   Besides being a biography of a scoundrel dominated by an even bigger scoundrel (Mussolini), Tomes gives some interesting descriptions of Albania in the 1920s and 1930s. He describes the capital of Tirana as city that smelt of mutton and coffee grounds, which was covered in a cloud of dust in the summer and slimy mud in the winter, and where school children were required to recite a catechism that included the lines "where does the mud seem sweeter than honey? In Albania." Many Albanians were more Turkish in manner than the Turks in Atatürk's new republic, yet they were still drawn to European and American culture. Tomes writes about moviegoers who boggled at the fancy-dress films of Greta Garbo while scoffing at westerns and war movies as being hopelessly unrealistic.
   
   Zog was a hard-working ruler and physically brave, but when the Italians overthrew him, the people hardly noticed. Tomes even writes that the invading Italians made the country more prosperous. When Zog (or "bird" in Albanian) became king and rather hopefully named himself King Zog the first, he was mocked abroad as King Bird I. Yet he couldn't name himself "King Ahmet" because he didn't want to be seen as a Muslim ruler and yet he couldn't disavow Islam. Looking at Zog's reign, it is easier to understand how later Albanian rulers became suspicious of foreign powers and organized religion.
   
   After Zog and the Second World War, the communists came to power under the Stalinist Enver Hoxha. His regime was so repressive that many Albanians today hold King Zog in some esteem. Tomes calls this a sobering thought.



4. Obscure subject, but a wonderful book -- thorough, well-researched, and well-written. If you're a history buff, this is a must-read.