No comments about Elizabeth II: Forty Glorious Years.

No comments about Life of Maximilian I., late emperor of Mexico, with a sketch of the Empress Carlota. By Frederic Hall..

No comments about The Memoirs Of Madame De Montespan.

No comments about Life of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen.

1 comments about James IV: The Stewart Dynasty in Scotland.

1. I purchased this book hoping to further understand the reign of James IV of Scotland and the events that led up to Flodden Field. Norman MacDougall certainly provides this information in, what is often, excruciating detail. Mainly focusing on government operation, political in-fighting, and clan rivalries of late 15th and early 16th centuries, MacDougall throws a plethora of Scottish earls, bishops, and burghers into the mix and the reader is highly challenged to keep it all straight. If one is looking for a leisurely read of James IV and his reign, I suggest looking elsewhere. However, if one requires an intensely detailed political account of this patricidal, fiscally obsessed, ruler who, himself, was doomed to destruction, you need look no further.

5 comments about Charles at Fifty.

1. I've always believed that a biographer should strive to be as evenhanded about his subject as possible: Show the person "warts and all," as Oliver Cromwell once said, the bad with the good, and let the reader decide on the noted person's merit or lack of same.
   Anthony Holden apparently would not agree with that belief -- at least, not when it comes to Prince Charles. Despite his protestation in the prologue that he has "attempted to tell the tale as objectively as possible," he also refers to "my informed disillusion with the prince to whom I once warmed." Holden also acknowledges that he and Charles no longer speak to each other, and that Charles's office was not cooperative with him in the preparation of "Charles At Fifty."
   Wonder why? Could it be that he had already burned his bridges with the Prince of Wales with the tone of the first two biographies of him he wrote, when Charles turned 30 and 40? I haven't read those books, but anyone who has worked his way through "Charles At Fifty" might guess that the others were hardly fair, either.
   In this book, Holden plain and simply trashes Charles's reputation in every way he can. In addition, he seems to detest the monarchy in general, as well as Charles in particular.
   The earlier chapters of this book at least make a passing swipe at objectivity here and there. But once Princess Diana enters the picture, it is evident by Holden's writing that he positively adored her; he takes her side in every conflict the couple had during their unhappy marriage, in a manner so obvious that a blind man could see it.
   Holden's malicious glee in relating every incident in which Diana got the better of Charles in their public relations battle -- or should I say every time that Holden believes she did -- is palpable. One can almost hear him smacking his lips with relish at Charles's discomfiture with his out-of-control, publicity-seeking wife.
   Holden's obvious belief voiced in the book's final pages, that with Diana divorced, then dead, Charles must choose between the throne and Camilla Parker-Bowles, is not likely to be fulfilled. Charles and Camilla were married, and the House of Windsor did not fall; I predict that one day he will sit on the throne, and his son Prince William will have to wait his turn.
   And Mr. Holden will have wasted all that bile for nothing.



2. Although some may find fault with the author for criticizing Charles more than Diana, frankly Charles is more 'accident prone' so it's beyond me how any even-handed author could write anything about the Charles/Diana events without sounding too pro-Diana.

   Though well intentioned at heart, Charles is a product of his breeding--not just the man warped by being surrounded by sycophants but a man who has inherited the Hanover/Windsor genetic faults. First among these is the fact that Charles, like his great-grandfather George V, is not too bright. Unlike George V, he wants to be seen as bright and this is what leads him into trouble. Charles's lack of focus and desire to meddle in politics is a fault he shares with Edward VIII--along with an overly long, dissolute bachelorhood and a penchant for choosing the wrong woman.

   Diana has her faults too, but to paraphrase Jane Austen's comment about George IV, "She was bad, but she would not have become as bad as she was if he had not been infinitely worse."

   All the author had to do was write from record and let the actions of the man damn him. This is what he did. Charles is his own worst enemy.

   Charles will be king in due time, but for the sake of the monarchy, may Elizabeth II live a long time, may Charles gain a better sense of what a British monarch should do before he becomes king and may his reign be a short one.




3. I'm disappointed that this book does not describe in more depth Charles' role as a MODERN king-to-be. Britain was once one of the greatest empires the world had ever seen; in fact, most of its colonies have only been relinquished post-World War II. Yet, there is no sense of Charles as a truly modern man of the late 20th Century. He could be much more than a mere figurehead for England, and yet he has chosen to do no more than his mother does in terms of being a compass for England's winds of change. Charles seems to have absolutely no political, social or economic advisers surrounding him. Could this be because he is, as so many accounts have suggested over the years, a rather dim bulb? After all, the Windsors have never been known for being bright. Tellingly, Charles NEVER has any people of color as friends, or in his entourage. No one from Hong Kong or China or India or Kenya or Nigeria or Barbados or a couple dozen other former colonies of color is ever seen anywhere near the Prince, whether as a friend, confidant, or consultant. And yet there are hundreds of thousands of well-educated men and women of color from the former colonies, who've been educated at Oxbridge (Oxford and/or Cambridge) or the London School of Economics or Britain's other elite learning institutions, who are of an age with the Prince and could certainly fit into the Prince's circle. What an example he could set for an England still going through the pains of post-colonialism! But no. The King-to-be is as stuffy, conventional, and ultimately, as out of touch with the new England as his mother and father. This is the side of the Prince that warrants full examination . . . . . .



4. respect for his counrty's monarchy than he does.

   I enjoyed reading parts of this biography, however, it does not put His Royal Highness in a good light. That is truely a shame since the PoW has no real peers. How can Mr. Holden judge Prince Charles so harshly, when the closest peer he has is HRH Prince Felipe Of Spain or some other heir to a throne? Besides that, he is heir to the throne by divine right, not public opinion. He should be shown respect at all times. On the other hand, I was LOL at some parts of it because it seems that the PoW does not have any common sense.

   The chapter(s) on Charles' love for achitecture is downright BORING! And Poundbury? What was that? That chapter went over my head.

   One more thing, does the author know how to write about BOTH sides of the story?




5. I was extremely disappointed with "Charles at Fifty" for three reasons. First, the title is grossly misleading. It implies that most or all of the book will examine the Prince of Wales as he is today (i.e., how he's handling Diana's death; his relationship with his sons and Camilla, his parents, etc.) Instead, almost all of it is a biography of Charles, going back all 50 years. Relatively little focuses on Charles after the divorce. Second, there's very little here that we've not already seen or heard somewhere else. (Readers are forced to sit through yet another rehashing of the Waleses' maital woes.) Third, the book is terribly one-sided. Diana is portrayed as the innocent victim of a cold, heartless, selfish man who used her. Little effort is made at telling his side of the story. Far superior to Holden's book is Penny Junor's "Charles: Villian or Victim;" however, be warned that Junor is VERY pro-Charles.

No comments about Charles Rennie Mackintyre: 2.

1 comments about The Ebbs and Flows of Fortune: The Life of Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk.

1. Given all the books that have been written about the Tudor period it is extraordinary that none has covered Thomas Howard, the 3rd Duke of Norfolk. He lived through the reigns from Henry VII to Mary and played a major part in the maintenance of the Tudor grip on England. He even survived being sentenced to death for treason under Henry VIII, and spending Edward VI's reign in the Tower. Not bad for a staunchly conservative man of Catholic persuasions. (He avoided the block because Henry VIII chose the day appointed for his execution to die). Thomas Howard was released in the reign of Mary and died shortly afterwards at the age of 80. It is hard to think of any other aristocrat who was so fortunate. However, for once in the Tudor period, justice was done; he had backed his sovereign through thick and thin. Indeed, he has been much maligned as being no more than a 'yes-man' to Henry VIII and none too bright with it. But although he made no great claims to learning his contribution was immense. He communicated directly with diplomats, accumulated many works of art (preserving several of the Holbein portraits that are increasingly well-known today). He is perhaps best thought of as the last of the feudal lords, able to raise effective armies almost at will (though always in the interests of his liege sovereign).

   David Head is apologetic about the length of time it has taken to produce this work, which has been gestating for over a decade, notwithstanding that it formed the basis of his doctoral thesis. However it is clear to the educated eye that a colossal amount of work has gone into it. It is increasingly rarely that one can read a history book and be sure that it is entirely the work of the person whose name appears on the cover. Possibly the reason no-one has attempted a similar work to this in the intervening period is that its reputation for excellence and academic rigour (sorry, I'm English!) travels before it.

   This book is worth every penny to the serious scholar, although it may come as a bit of a shock to those who thought that Tudor History and Antonia Fraser were synonymous!

   John A.W. Lock

No comments about History of Friedrich II of Prussia, Volume XX (Dodo Press).

No comments about Memorias/ Memories.