5 comments about The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England, Revised and Updated.

1. If your a history buff like I am you will love this book. It is a must for those interested in the past.



2. I love this book. Even with all of the reading I have done on the British Monarchy, this book had never before seen pictures. My only complaint would be that it often focuses more on political events rather than personal lives. But, there is wonderful information in this book, and I have enjoyed every page.



3. As a lover of British royal history, I think this is a fantastic overview that 'sums' things up, devoting a few pages to tell the story of each monarch. Antonia Fraser manages to pass on a lot of information in short form. The illustrations are wonderful, as are the charts (although as someone else mentioned, they are missing some details for us serious fanatics). I consider this is a great compilation if you just want the big picture, or a starting point to jump off into detailed biographies of individual monarchs and/or houses.



4. My dad gave me this lovely book for Christmas back in '99, and I have used it as a reference ever since. Although it is a splendid read from cover-to-cover, I find that it is one of the best books out there to really whet the appetite for more in-depth research into the monarch, rebel or time period of your choice.
   
   The genealogy charts are fun to puzzle out, and the illustrations, including coats of arms, maps, tapestries and portraits, add extra personality to the history, which is, in itself, fascinating.
   
   Of course, a book of this length only scratches the surface of the noble, scandalous, shocking and never-dull lives of the British monarchs, their families, friends and enemies, so you must dig deeper if any one subject appeals to you. All in all, a well-written, organized and illustrated overview of a sizeable chunk of history.



5. Well written and documented overwiew
   
   But it lacks a bibliography for further reading

5 comments about King, Kaiser, Tsar: Three Royal Cousins Who Led the World to War.

1. Other reviews have pretty much covered the content and general scope of the book -- a very interesting, fairly detailed (as much as the broad subject matter and limited page count will allow) biography of 3 rulers and the way they were influenced by their world, and influenced the world around them. While very critical of Wilhelm, she is also fairly sympathetic, portraying him as a man who was often 'left out', due to factors largely beyond his control.
   
   While overall it was very well written, the structure of the text led to a few minor issues.
   
   a) Because it covers three people, the content isn't always chronological, leading to some confusion, and occassional repetition of facts and incidents.
   
   b)Some of the repetition got rather annoying. (The author reminds us about 20 times that George was a constitutional monarch [and therefore required to follow the demands of parliament], while Nicky and Willie were absolute monarchs.
   
   c) More pictures would have been nice, as well as a more detailed family-tree. (Many people mentioned in the text are not included in the tree. The extremely complex interrationship between the various royal families would have made a more detailed chart very helpful.)



2. This book has a great premise to it. To inform us of the three cousins and leaders of the major players in the first great war. One that has read about the subject though will find that this book takes on too many tasks and leaves things unsaid. Although it does tell the early history of each king well, when they get older and the story needs to be told in some detail, many events are left out.
   
   First of, as is with many books on this era, this is an anti German book. Laying the blame of the entire war, its continuation and practices on the German side. It lays all the blame on the Kaiser when it was know that they generals were the ones who ran the country towards the end of the war. Plus it fails to prove that one of the major reason of the war was the declining British trade to that of Germany. One thing this books does explain well though is one of the reasons why both Russia and Britain were allies was because the wives of each of the kings hated Germany since it had invaded thier country back in the 1860's. They influenced the kings and made the Kaiser feel even more uneasy than he already was because of his handicap, since he always felt as an outsider to his cousins.
   
   This book does a fair job in both detailing the Tsar and Kaiser but does not say much about England's king. Again this book details a lot on the Kaiser and his follies and hadicaps, both physical and mental. If you are looking for a starter book on the war with an enphasis on the Kings this is a good book for you. But if you are looking into more backround on the war this is not it as this books does not touch much on the war and when it does it does not do a good job at it, even the assasination of the Tsar and why it happened is not clearly explained. So if you want an out the subject book on the Great War this is a good book but not great if you already know a lot about the War.



3. Their era of kingship is long gone but their legacy remains. British historian Catrine Clay has told their fascinating story in this new triple biography of the rulers and the world they lost in the guns of August, 1914. It was in that fateful autumn that the long 19th century of peace in Europe ended with the horrific beginning of the Great War which would claim 10 million lives and over 20 million casualties. Clay's purpose is not to retell that story oft told but to look at the remarkable lives of three ordinary men who led their nations in this dark and dangerous time. The chief players in this drama are:
   1. Queen Victoria-She was the formidable grandmother of all three of the cousins profiled in the book. Victoria ruled the greatest military power on earth whose navy ruled the waves. Despite the Afghan, Zulu and Boer wars Britain was surpreme in its rulership over a vast empire and a democratic society in which the monarch had no real power.
   2. George V-George was the second son of Edward VII (who ruled from 1901-1910 forging the Entente Cordial treaty with France and Russia pledging them to come to the aid of their allies in time of war). The oldest son Edward died in 1892 so George became king in 1910 following the death of Edward VII. George was a momma's boy and was tied to the apron strings of his beautiul mother Alexandra the Danish born queen. She suffered from deafness and putting up with her husband's constant philandering (most notable of Edward's mistresses as Alice Keppel). Alexandra hated Germany following the ravishment of her native Denmark by the Germans in the 1862 war. George is sometimes known as the sailor king due to his long service in the Royal Navy. He was a faithful husband to his wife May Teck and was a good father. He loved his stamp collection and was a good friend to his cousin Nicky the Russian Tsar. George was the only one of the three rulers who emerged unscathed and popular at the end of World War I. He would die in 1936 beloved of his nation. During World War I he left the fighting to professional soldiers encouraging the troops by frequent visits to them.
   3. Kaiser Wilhelm II-He was born to Vicky (the favorite daughter of Queen Victoria) and his father Frederick. Wilhelm was born with a deformed left arm and a severe hearing problem. He had difficulty with the arm throughout his life compensating for it by becoming a militarist. Wilhelm grew to despise the views of his mother the liberally minded Vicky and his father whom he deemed weak. Wilhelm married Dona who supported him and was not very bright. In 1888 old Kaiser Wilhelm I died to be replaced by Frederick who also died that year succumbing to throat cancer. 1888 became known as the year of the three emperors for that is when Wilhelm II got his chance to rule Germany with a strong hand. He favored the extreme right wing views of Chancellor Bulow and his good friend Prince Eulenburgh and his circle of homosexual cronies, Wilhelm fired Bismarck and desired to make Germany a military powerhouse as he built up the navy and strengthened the army. Wilhelm believed that he was surrounded by enemies knowing of the alliance of France, England and Russia. He was emotionaly unstable suffering mood swings and fits of anger. He was virulently anti-semitic and favored the Junker class. Wilhelm would see his dreams turn into nightmares when Germany was crushed in World War I. The defeated Kaiser would die in Holland as an exile in 1941.
   3. Tsar Nicholas II is a tragic figure. His father Alexander III died in 1894 making Nicholas the Tsar. His mother was Minnie the Danish sister of Britain's Queen Alexandra. This formidable woman hated Germany and taught this lesson to Nicholas. He was a small man with an ordinary brain. He was dominated by his German born wife Alexandra who was a favorite of Queen Victoria. Their son Alexi had hemophilia and the couple relied on faith healers like Rasputin to give them hope that the heir to the throne would triumph over the disease inherited through the mother's blood. Many Russians wrongly thought Alexandra was a German spy!Rasputin would be murdered and so would the Tsar, Alexandria and their 4 daughters and Alexis in July, 1917. The Bolsheviks under Lenin ruled supreme as Tsarist Russia and the Romanov dynasty became a casualty of war.
   Clay tells us the story of these men dealing with a new modern age they were unable to deal with. Both Nicholas and Wilhelm believed in absolute monarchy which was doomed. George was guided by his advisors who believed strongly in the British constitutional monarchy the only one of the three systems that worked then and now.
   The book is well illustrated including a family tree evincing just how close were the blood ties uniting the royalty of Europe prior to the holocaust of World War I. The book is recommended as a fine historical account.



4. I think the subtitle of this book, "Three Royal Cousins Who Led The World To War" is a bit misleading. We're dealing with three monarchs who happen to be cousins: the King of England, the German Kaiser, and the Russian Tsar. Of these three, the English King was a constitutional monarch, and really had no say on questions of war and peace. The other two, however, were autocrats and controlled the fates of their respective peoples. The book is an excellent family history of how the various royal courts of Europe were related, and everything related back to Queen Victoria. The author places the bulk of the blame for the war directly on the shoulders of the Kaiser and his paranoia. She concludes that, if his English relations had treated him a bit more inclusively, the war might not have happened. I myself do not subscribe to that belief, but it is plausible. The Tsar was a victim of his own timidity and his wife's overbearing control of him. Of the three monarchs, I have the most sympathy for Nicholas, who really didn't deserve to be deserted by his English cousin when he was in need of a place of exile, nor did he and his entire family deserve to be executed. This is a very interesting, and ultimately sad, book, and I recommend it highly.



5. I must have misread the discription because I thought the book was going to focus completely on their part of leading the world to war, the war and aftermath but that asside the author presents a very good biography on all three men. Very detailed and in depth on everything from their lives from birth to death. I liked having more background on Wilhelm II who's generally considered military monster and the one most pushed the world into World War I. It was very interesting reading about his childhood, his deformed hand and his love-hate relationship with England. Its interesting that Wilhelm and Nicholas didn't get along better since they both drove their countries to ruin and were forced to abdicate. The bio on George V was very good and I like that the author put in the part of him getting the British government to recend the offer of safe haven for Nicholas and his family and that he allowed the prime minister to take the blame for that. Most George V bios I've read either airbrush that detail or skip over it. I caught the Nikolasha error which is the reason for four stars instead of five its a small error but the author or editor should have caught it.

5 comments about The Lost King of France: How DNA Solved the Mystery of the Murdered Son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

1. I got this because I had read a book about Eleanor of Aquitaine. With all the different countries & the royal families I thought it would be interesting to read a little more. I had no interest in Marie Antointette, I thought she was a little overdone. I found the book about her son & vaguely remember hearing about the scandal in my High School French lessons. I read the book in about 2 days it was that captiavting. I thought I would have a hard time with the French names & places, but it seems like 2 years of French all those years ago stood me in good stead.
   This is a great book for someone who is looking to learn facts & resolutions from research, not someone looking to find idle gossip about a most noted royal.



2. This well written and compelling work of non-fiction recounts the political events that led up to the French Revolution and the tragedy that befell the royal family, Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and their two living children, the Louis-Charles and Marie-Therese. It gives insight into just how the royal family was treated after the revolutionists were in charge.
   
   The book details the terms of their imprisonment in Temple Tower. It is almost hard to believe the cruelty with which they were met. The heartbreak of the King and Queen is palpable as they realized what fate had in store for them. Moreover, their fear for the fate of their children must have been an incalculable agony, piercing the heart and soul of the King and Queen.
   
   While the indignities imposed upon the King and Queen were insufferable, once the royal couple met their fate at the guillotine, what was done to the now eight year old King Louis XVII was downright cruel and inhuman. Barbaric beyond belief, his treatment was nothing short of shocking. While his thirteen year old sister was also cruelly treated, her experience paled in comparison to that of her once happy and cherubic little brother.
   
   When Louis XVII was declared dead two years later, the fact that there was no marked grave sparked rumors that the he had escaped and was still among the living. Over the years, many came forward claiming to be the lost King of France. It was not until the twenty-first century that the mystery was laid to rest, thanks to DNA testing and a heart purported to be that of Louis XVII.
   
   This is a fascinating, well-researched book that will keep the reader turning the pages. Bravo!



3. You read about how this little boy, who'd known only the best the world had to give, ended up in a sunless room, curled in a fetal position, full of puss and unable (or unwilling) to speak. This is a creepy tale that makes what happened to the son of the Tsar Alexander's son in 1917 (or there abouts...who knows for sure?) seem like a kind ending. It also gives you insight into his mother's execution and his sister's life.



4. Of all the human tragedy that marked the French Revolution, perhaps none was so acute as that experienced by the royal family. In this well-researched and engrossing book, Deborah Cadbury conveys the full measure of this tragedy in her description of the unspeakable horrors visited on the little Dauphin of France, Louis-Charles, son of Louis VXI and Marie-Antoinette. It is impossible to avoid that sick feeling in the pit of one's stomach as we read this harrowing tale, and it certainly helps explain why, to this day, many people can't bring themselves to believe that it was indeed Marie-Antoinette's "chou d'amour" who ended his days in so wretched a manner.
   Cadbury also does a fine job of recounting in a very readable manner the seemingly endless procession of pretenders that began to emerge shortly after the Terror, and keeps the reader in suspense until the final denouement.
   All in all, an excellent, moving book, not to be missed.



5. I enjoyed Deborah Cadbury's "The Lost King of France," although I would never recommend reading it at night, unless stories of small children being brutalized help one to sleep. Cadbury has a dry, logical style which makes her descriptions of the royal family's descent into hell all the more horrifying. I was perturbed when she stated that Fersen and Marie-Antoinette were probably lovers, without giving any evidence, especially when she was careful to give evidence for everything else. Also, on the cover of the book is most likely a picture of Louis-Joseph, not Louis-Charles (Louis XVII).
   
   Many say that the book proves beyond doubt the death of Louis XVII on June 8, 1795, but it does not. The DNA merely concluded that the desiccated heart which was allegedly removed from the little victim who died in the Temple was the child of a Habsburg princess. As anyone familiar with European history knows, Habsburg princesses were legion; many not having the last name of Habsburg, but having Habsburg genes. Although it is highly probable that Louis XVII did die in the Temple at age ten after horrendous sufferings, it should be recalled that Madame Royale herself had doubts about the fate of her brother, since she had not been allowed to identify the body.

5 comments about Caesar: Life of a Colossus.

1. Prior to this Caesar biography we essentially had Shakespeare's version and, in modern times, Meier's as respectively the popular and definitive versions of Caesar's life. This new biography reminds us once and for all that Shakespeare's play is a dramatic butchery. And it makes by comparison Meier's version read like a dry text book bereft of the dramatic juice and blood that were in fact Caesar's life. As a coincidental aside, Goldsworthy lives up to his name as a biographical historian. It requires a master of both genres to weave together the complex political machinations and upheavals, ethnic infighting, cultural norms, economic compulsions, military dispositions, and personal ambitions in Caesar's Rome that helped form who he was as, ultimately, a man. As a fairly knowledgeable fan of Julius Caesar the historical figure I found this book enlightening. As a fan of Caesar the man, I found it completely enjoyable.



2. This is a book I would recommend to anyone with some curiousity about "how Rome worked"...provided the reader has a strong mental filter to separate fact from fiction. It is readable, and the author's English is delightful, in the sense that there is something of the turn of the Century (19th-to-20th - not 20th-to-21st) elegance in it. The focus is perhaps more on the "workings of Rome" than on Caesar's most important years affecting Rome - the author is a bit too shy to appear to "endorse a Dictator". And, this is the weakness of the book. It is somewhat like historical works published in the Soviet era in the Soviet Union or one of its satellites. (Yevgeniy Tarlé's works on Napolean and Talleyrand come to mind [ Bonaparte, ]. Superb history, but Tarlé, a Soviet author, must pay homage to dialectic materialism).. In this case the author cannot keep himself from paying homage to all the "important" concepts that make a British academic "politicaly acceptable". Why, oh why, do so many today contaminate their excellent work with the eager additions to show that their thinking, by they way, corresponds to what is required? In this respect, the Introduction is outright painful. Also, to be popular in the early 21st Century, we must write about sex, sex, sex... Of course, we are just speculating, and therefore to avoid any danger of being accused of mixing history with fiction, we put in some weasel-words when we have no sources... The reason why this otherwise excellent work does not get five stars is the author's self-demeaning with his eagerness to prove that he is Politically Correct.



3. This is a good book, though it lacks a little organization. It's linear and accumulative. The story is not that well broken down into smaller issues like different size pieces of a puzzle, rather it's more like an accumulation of identical logs or bricks that amount to the thick book we have here. Facts and dates just follow each other in sequence. The truth is the author has enough talent to not get too messy, though at times it is monotonous. A clearer structure and less blurry lines between issues, dates and locations could have helped. If you want to go back and find the exact page where a certain issue is dealt with, it is going to be hard.
   
   Looks like a lot of cons but overall the book is readable thanks to its almost popular style, modern students friendly.
   
   A note that meant a lot to me as a Spaniard, and that I can't help mentioning: "In 92 BC an edict closed down schools teaching rhetoric Latin, stating that instruction in Greek was superior, even for teaching a man to make speeches in Latin (...) this measure was in part intended to prevent the oratorical skills useful in public life from becoming too common, for such schools were not likely to have taken pupils from those families outside the Senate (...) so this continued the emphasis on what would be useful rather than on acquiring purely academic learning." This reminded me of the banning of the Spanish language in schools in Cataluña (Spain) for the partisan interests of the entrenched nazionalist class; a class that lives on well-paid government jobs and subsidies and is throwing overboard a whole cultural legacy that belongs to a larger community than their own clan.
   
   A whole lot we still have to learn from history (and from books like this one), from Roman history specifically. Treat yourself and take sides between Cato and Caesar. But try to understand the other side too.



4. As a non-professional reviewer, I'll just give a few comments. This book gives a wonderful picture of a fascinating man. As is often the case with a good historical biography, the book also provides a revealing insight into the subject's society, the late Roman Republic, and the amazing, alien, and yet very human characters that played a part in forming it. The book is, furthermore, a joy to read - well written, detailed without being overwhelming, and full of interesting stories. Highly recommended.



5. Ever since the great German historian Theodor Mommsen portrayed Caius Julius Caesar as Rome's "perfect man," the dictator has been the subject of many biographies. There are some excellent scholarly materials on the general, such as Mattias Gelzer's translated Caesar: Politician and Statesman and Christian Meier's Caesar. Some more contemporary biographies geared toward the layperson, such as The Education of Julius Caesar by Arthur Kahn and The Assassination of Julius Caesar by Michael Parenti, present the general as a popular reformer. With Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Keith Goldsworthy, an excellent combination of the scholarly and popular is presented.
   
   In Caesar: Life of a Colossus , Mr. Goldsworthy explains technical and historical terms concisely and comprehensively. (There is also a glossary included.) Detailed endnotes and a thorough bibliography are included. The author's writing style is both lively and engaging. Although sympathetic to Caesar, Mr. Goldsworthy is objective, both with the general and his adversaries. He portrays both Caesar and Rome in the late Republic in a vivid and understandable manner.
   
   Two interesting aspects that Mr. Goldsworthy ponders are Caesar's view on religious matters and the impact that the general's personal life had on political events. Our historical resources are meager on these two subjects, so Mr. Goldsworthy makes some educated guesses. Caesar was Pontifex Maximus , though some of the ancient sources and modern historians portray the dictator as a skeptic. Still, Mr. Goldsworthy speculates on how religion impacted Caesar's life and actions. For the scholar, Stefan Weinstock's Divus Julius presents the official political-religious aspects of Caesar's reign, as well as his successors' contribution to the cult of Caesar.
   There is also some discussion on the role that Caesar's family played in his formation, particularly the women in his life, such as his mother Aurelia and his daughter Julia. Again, the primary sources are limited, but the author tries to piece together the familial relationships.

5 comments about Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Murder of Lord Darnley.

1. Like many people, I'm aware of who Mary Queen of Scots is, how she died and the death of her husband. But, I knew little about the actual details of the case, the atmosphere of the time, and the specific evidence against her. In this book, Alison Weir reveals her theory of what happened to Lord Darnley and how his wife Mary was involved.
   
   Since this mystery is many hundreds of years old, there is no concrete forensic evidence to lay it to rest. Some historians and readers will no doubt disagree with Weir's solution. She doesn't present new "facts," she provides her interpretation of the existing ones. However, she has done meticulous research, which is readily apparent, and presents a solid circumstantial case for Mary's guilt or innocence (I won't ruin it!). In one way, Weir's conclusion is irrelevant. Some reviewers have already mentioned Weir's take on the Casket Letters. Weir is not the only historian to doubt their validity, so I had no problem seeing that viewpoint. What makes this worth reading is learning what evidence was used at the time, the placement of people and events, and an examination of it all. I appreciated learning more about this famous, ill-fated woman.
   
   Weir's trademark easy writing style makes this flow like a novel, while still remaining non-fiction. It is a long book, but I don't feel it was bogged down. Readers need more details on the political mood, Mary and the events leading up to Darley's death to get the full picture. I don't think this is as good as The Princes in the Tower. That read like a true-crime novel, and I found myself convinced by her argument at the end. I'm still uncertain what I think really happened to Darnley, but I found Weir somewhat persuasive in her view. Most of Weir's books are worth reading, but this is definitely one of her best efforts via a vis a mystery. Highly recommended.



2. When i brought this book i was hoping that i would come away with a new and clear understanding unfortunitly i was not 100 per cant satisfied.This book moves along at a very brisk pace this is justified i suppose by the fact that the early life and other events that exclude the Darnly affair are not supposed to be the highlight of the story.Alison weir does not make it very clear who was most likely to be guilty of the crime i suggest this book for someone who enjoys deciphering but if you just like to have a casual read then this is not the book for you.I was not too disapointed for i was able to get it new for 5 dollars pheraps for this price i may say it was a good buy but if you are paying above 8 dollars then i would not bother.My review may sound critical but i merely would not like others to be dissapointed and other alison weir books such as the wives of henry the 8th or the life of elizabeth the first are more desirable



3. I was disappointed in the book, because I hoped for a more balanced, objective look at the murder of Darnley, and Mary's degree of involvement. I agree with the reviewer who said the book needed better editing. Too much time was devoted to repetitious and indignant refutation of George Buchanan's ludicrous allegations about Mary, and Ms. Weir's point of view was driven home too vehemently. The research was meticulous, to the point of ponderous. Near the end of the book, I found myself thinking "Off with her head!" and skipping chunks of pages to reach the conclusion, which, by that time, I found rather satisfying.



4. Alison Weir writes wonderfully. Her discussion is crisp, engaging, and even by turns charming. She has a knack for pulling out telling detail, and weaves original source material deftly through each passage. In introducing Lord Darnley, the then-future husband of Mary, Queen of Scots, she notes that his parents doted on him, holding him particularly precious as most of his siblings died in infancy. She finds a letter he wrote at 8 that sheds insight on his ambition and religion. Detail by detail, she paints his personality, bringing him to life before us. This is a book that is hard to put down.
   
   Yet, Weir also has a knack for building assumption on frail assumption, trying to build a house of bricks on a foundation of straw. As an example, she speculates that the illness that plagued Darnley in the months before his death was not smallpox (as commonly assumed) but rather an intermediate stage of syphilis. She acknowledges that this is not clear from the record, but merely speculation, and outlines both the pros and cons for her view. Weir is clear enough: there's some reasonable chance she is right, but she acknowledges that, across the years, it is impossible to establish her position with certainty. Weir then builds on this assumption, suggesting it was "inconceivable" that Mary did not find out that syphilis ailed her husband, making assumptions about Mary's state of mind, whether or not she may have had another pregnancy, and how she interacted with other men and her husband based on the speculations about Darnley's disease. This is but one example. Again and again, as one works through the book, speculations which are carefully qualified and limited on first argument become certainties when repeated a few pages later, so that as one finally reaches her conclusion, gets her point, and steps back to consider whether she is right, her logic simply melts away. In the end, she adds nothing to the history but her pretty words.
   
   Had this been a work of historical fiction, I would praise it. Weir is a wonderful story teller. Alas, the book masquerades as history. But, oh, if only other historians could write like Weir!



5. I'll start off by saying that before reading this book, my only knowledge of Mary Queen of Scots came from fiction books. I had thought she was an interesting character, so I bought this to read more about her. For a 600+ history book, I swallowed it pretty fast.
   
   This book is written well, discussing an interesting topic, and all in all, clearly presenting facts that are very intriguing in a manner that makes it interesting to anyone who tries to read it. While I can't say that I know whether or not the facts were accurate or not, I know that it all seemed plausible to me (or, well, most of it, at least) and that I enjoyed myself reading this.
   
   For those who may know more about this fascinating queen and simply want another view, I don't see why you shouldn't read this. It's nice, it's well done, and it's certainly a good way to spend a few days. For those trying to get into Mary, this may also be your book. It's not too difficult to read, and while some of Weir's beliefs on what happened are questionable, it's a good book.

5 comments about Victoria's Daughters.

1. A very good biography on Queen Victoria's five daughters Victoria, Alice, Helena, Louise , and Beatrice. All five growing up under a domineering and interfering mother who was also queen which none of them were ever allowed to forget. Victoria grew up the favorite daughter while Alice became the more humble and more interested in helping others especially nursing. The youngest three found it more difficult to try and have their own marriages after the death of their father the last on Beatrice in particular ended up fighting over a year in order to get her marriage because her mother didn't want to lose her helper. In the end Beatrice got her marriage but was still not allowed to leave her mother's side as her mother's messager Beatrice was often isolated from her other siblings. In fact upon her mother's death didn't quite know what to do with herself. I enjoyed reading about their childhood especially. An excellent read.



2. Victoria's Daughters is so well-written and informative, I found it hard to put down. Jerrold Packard seems to strike just the right happy medium of having tons of information without going into too many unnecessary details. The book contains sometimes startling insights into the personalities and private lives of Vicky, Alice, Helena, Louise, and Beatrice that most biographers don't delve into. This is easily one of the best royal biographies I've ever read.



3. For all the pomp, ceremony and privileges of belonging to a Royal family, the chores, the duties, the self discipline and living your life in the public eye would make, for me, an onerous task, for which no amount of money or fame could make up. This book is a fascinating look at Victoria's daughters and how their lives were virtually mapped out for them at birth. In that era, Royal Princesses were expected to marry according to rank and for whatever alliances could be brought to their country. I had known a fair bit about the lives of the more well known daughters, such as the Empress of Germany, poor creature, whose early widowhood caused the rise to the throne by her lunatic son, William, the Kaiser who started WW1, but loved finding out about the private lives of several of the younger girls and their marriages and families, some of which worked out quite well and others which were an utter disaster. The tragedy of the haemophilia which was passed through the generations by Victoria's daughters brought sorrow to many of the girls who lost sons in infancy or when they were only very young men, was a constant terror among the Royal families of Europe, into which these daughters married, as there was no way of forecasting or curing any potential carrier. It's a great look into life in Victorian times.



4. 
   Last year I read the mesmerizing "Born to Rule" about Queen Victoria's granddaughters who became ruling monarchs. That wonderful book, led me to this one.
   
   The book begins, as expected, with the royal childhoods. The Queen would never have her staff spare the rod, nor would she take pains to spare the child any humiliation. She calls them ugly and dumb, and they know where they stand. (No wonder they had so much grief when their father died!)
   
   Victoria's views were transplanted to Germany by her eldest daughter. Vicky's first son's handicap, and the resulting strict regimine should have spurred some maternal empathy, but all little Willy got was structure, punishment and criticism. One could build an argument Queen Victoria's child rearing methods spawned WWI.
   
   Queen Victoria comes off as totally self involved, and like the other royals she's obsessed with monarchy. Marriages, if not based on passion are bargained with it. Rank is the central issue. Fortunately, Victoria allows her daughters/granddaughters veto power, but keeps it for herself as well. For all the care and negotiation surrounding the marriages, not one of them or the life it brought, seemed to yield much happiness.
   
   Since there are 6 key characters (mother + 5 daughters) each worthy of their own biography, it is by nature a once over lightly. It has a good narrative style and is worth reading if you are interested in this period.



5. If you like Queen Victoria's stuff, you will love this story about her daughters.

5 comments about Sex with the Queen: 900 Years of Vile Kings, Virile Lovers, and Passionate Politics (P.S.).

1. Sex with the Queen was an entertaining journey through some of the most famous royal bedrooms in history. Covering women from Anne Boleyn to Catherine the Great to Diana Princess of Wales, Eleanor Herman brings to life the scandalous lives of royal women throughout history. Some were abused, unloved wives who just wanted to find some semblance of happiness in a world where royal females were cattle to be sold to the highest bidder. Some were not so sympathetic and at least one was completely innocent of the accusations that killed her.
   I enjoyed this book throughly. It was an intelligent look at the underlaying reasons for such "scandalous" behavior. It once again brings to light how deploringly women have been treated throughout history. It certainly has all the ingredients to make a good soap opera: sex, love, betrayal, and money. It definitely helps to make history more interesting and that is always a positive thing.



2. This is a delicious and oftentimes informative read. However, the back of the paperback edition deems the book "impeccably researched." I think any serious scholar, to put it nicely, would disagree in the extreme with that statement. I was expecting new revelations and information, but the author only puts together a hodgepodge of stories compiled from secondary sources--many of which were based on speculation and rumor themselves. That said, the book overall does not disappoint in entertainment value. Some readers loyal to Princess Diana wil be taken aback by Herman's harsh portrayal of the Princess as a manipulative, mentally unstable wolf in sheep's clothing. One nice feature is the PS section at the back of the book, which has a lot about Herman's journey to becoming a best-selling author. Aspiring writers will enjoy the PS addition to the author's work.



3. I have to say, this book was definitely an enjoyable read. When it got to the sections on princesses whose stories I know, however, I realized that everything leading up to that last chapter would have to be taken with a grain of salt, because the sheer volume of inaccuracies in just those two stories was incredible. I am curious as to where she found the resources she had to use to compile this book. The last chapter only discussed Empress Alexandra of Russia and Princess Diana. Being an avid fan of Russian history whose particular interest lies in that last bunch of Romanovs, I know that it has never been proven that Rasputin was Alexandra's lover (among the other "facts" presented). Ms. Herman obviously didn't get her research from any of the reputable historians, such as Nicholas Massie and Edward Radzinsky. And where on Earth did she get all of those "facts" about Princess Di? Of course the woman couldn't have been the saint she was made out to be. But a manipulative, love-starved, nymphomaniac b*tch? Probably even the queen would have a problem reconciling herself to that description. I actually had to stop reading there because, after all, the poor woman is dead thanks to people like Eleanor Herman, who comes off as nothing more than overzealous paparazzi in her version of Diana's life. With both women, she states assumptions and lies with such conviction that one has to wonder if being the "granddaughter 28 times removed of Eleanore of Aquitaine", and being "related to most of the royal families of Europe" isn't enough for her, and she's jealous of those who actually did get to live a royal life.
   
   Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this book - up until the crucifixions in the last chapter. It's well written and one can hope that not every princess in this book is so cruelly slandered, and that there might be some truth in the stories of Sophia Dorothea and Catherine the Great (my interest in the Romanov's doesn't go back that far, so I don't know what liberties were taken with Catherine and Elizabeth's stories). Ms. Herman is indeed talented, but maybe those talents would be better put to use writing historical fiction because she sure does seem to have a flair for making up stories.



4. This is the perfect book-end to this author's "Sex With Kings", for it shows that females were just as inclined to adultery as their male counterparts. The problem with being the Queen (or consort) was that, unlike the male, the female, unless she was ruler in her own right, faced severe penalties if caught in adultery. Henry VIII's wives were a perfect example, but there were others who were divorced, imprisoned, sent to a convent, or even beheaded. It shows that "equality of the sexes" is really a very new idea. What fascinated me about this book was the section about Princess Diana and her many and varied adulteries. I must confess to not being particularly interested in the sex lives of the Windsors, but Diana's erotic adventures amazed me! Obviously the term "people's princess" meant that she was a princess to much of the male population. One learns something new every day!



5. I sometimes wish that Amazon rated on a scale of 10 instead of 5--this is a better-than-3-star book. The book is truly a compendium of the triumphs and tragedies of women in high places for nine hundred years, and it's a romp to read. (It's also a better, and more sympathetic, book than Herman's first effortSex with Kings: 500 Years of Adultery, Power, Rivalry, and Revenge (P.S.)--better organized, and more accurate.) Ms. Herman's preferences for some royal ladies over others is very clear, though that is not a terrible flaw. My main problem with the book is expressed in the certainty of the captions of the many beautiful portraits reprinted in the book--there is some doubt that Marie Antoinette and Count Fersen were actually intimate, and very much doubt that Empress Alexandra ever slept with Rasputin--not that Rasputin wouldn't have tried. Certainly many believe as Ms. Herman does, including many of the subjects of these two queens, but I would have preferred it if she had presented both sides of the case, and let us decide. Nevertheless, especially if it whets your interest in history, royal or otherwise, this is a truly entertaining read.
   
   PS I am curious about the choice of cover art for "Queen" versus that for "Sex with Kings"--why a lovely scantily clad lady on BOTH? Perhaps we would be seeing a more "feminist" work if the cover of "Queen" had featured an analagous male figure!

No comments about Romanovs: Ruling Russia 1613-1917.

5 comments about Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe.

1. My love of medieval history and soft-spot for popular history made this book a natural for me. The story of four daughters of the Count of Provence who became "queens" is set in an era I've study quite a bit yet (back in college!) I know relatively little about Marguerite, Eleanor, Sanchia and Beatrice.
   
   Any biography of a major figure from the 13 century has hurdles: few contemporaneous first-hand accounts, few to none documents written by the figures themselves, etc. These problems are compounded exponentially when the figure in question is female. All too often, women just didn't rate making it into the chronicles. So Goldstone has her work cut out for her. She makes a valiant effort to piece together the careers and characters of these women drawing conclusions from the smattering of available facts. The reader can take issues with these conclusions but that, to me, is one of the rewards of reading about this era.
   
   All that said, this book was a disappointment. Other reviewers have noted the multitude of factual errors in this book and I have to add my voice to the chorus. Silly, stupid mistakes are present in every single chapter. Were all the fact checkers on vacation when this book was being edited? Did Goldstone get her index cards mixed up? Popular history often needs to tread lightly on the details but never on the facts.
   
   The narrative starts well but writing starts to become heavy going before youngest sister Beatrice hits the stage. Goldstone starts overwhelming the reader with "events" that aren't particularly telling about the four sisters or illuminating of their times. She also over does the adjectives; Sanchia is too frequently "gentle Sanchia", for example. The last quarter of the book was a real trial for me to finish.
   
   I've given this book three stars, the writing and the factual errors would make this book a two but the decent start and the relative obscurity of the topic earn it an extra star from me. If you want an intro to the period this is not the best place to start. If you are immersed in this period, you may find the errors too annoying to bear. If you are interested in learning about these four under-known sisters and their times and are comfortable skipping judiciously, this book may be for you.
   
   Kindle note: photos are included.



2. Reader friendly nonfiction historical. All interesting information about Louis the Ninth, Henry the Third, and others; most interesting to me were the four sisters, but of course the book doesn't concentrate on them as much as the crusades, and the men. I would love a novelist to tackle this story. Loads and loads of info on that time period in France, England, Italy. Not enough on the four sisters.



3. Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe is about the 4 daughters of the Count and Countess of Provence who all became Queens. They are Marguerite (married to Louis, King of France), Eleanor (married to Henry, King of England, Sanchia (married to Richard of Cornwell, later King of Germany) and Beatrice (married to King Louis' brother Charles of Anjou, later King of Sicily).
   
   I was worried that since this was non-fiction it would be dry and boring - a hard read, but I was pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed the writing and layout of the book (the chapters alternate between the sisters) and the sisters gave the author plenty to write about. What wonderfully strong, intelligent women! The drama within the family is more than adequate for a good read, but through in some wars and crusades and it becomes very interesting! Sibling rivalry at its best!
   
   I highly recommend Four Queens and look forward to learning more about these historical sisters!



4. The beginning of this book is engagingly written, but, as it goes on, it becomes a grind to read. By the middle of the book, the engaging, personal style is left behind; it's replaced by a dull recitation of events with scattered speculation thrown in. Yawn.
   
   Others have commented on the factual errors in the book, so I'll just mention that the author's comments on her research methodology explain how she made such errors. She says, for example, that she relies on Giovanni Villani's chronicle--despite its late date--because Dante had used it and "what was good enough for Dante was good enough for me." Oh, okay. Apparently, Ms. Goldstone doesn't understand the nature of Dante's work. I also found myself wondering what in the world were her sources for events in Germany because she didn't seem to have any grasp at all on medieval German culture. She doesn't mention what her sources for Germany were.
   
   Generally, popular history is fun to read. Not this one. It's dull, inaccurate, and written like a book report. That's too bad, because the subjects are fascinating.



5. Although I have read less than 100 pages of this book, and initially was quite pleased with the subject matter covered, some inaccurate details have lead me to agree with the more critical reviews.
   
   Specifically, the geographical errors are blatant. The most obvious one is on page 83 where Ascalon is described as being "about 30 miles east of Jerusalem", when on the map (which is very handily placed on the facing page) Ascalon is not east but west of of Jerusalem!!! Two others that I found referred to Flanders being on the western coast of France (page 60), when it is most definitely to the north and east of France, and less incorrect, but still not quite accurate enough for me was Britanny being referred to as being "immediately south of Normandy" (page42). Yes, it is south, but it is much more to the WEST of Normandy as well as south . . . Not good for less than 100 pages into a non-fiction historical work.
   
   Is this a case of nit-picking? Well, all I know is this: if these basic facts are not correct, then there may be more that I would not know about and so I am less likely to accept other interpretations/conclusions the author presents this book. When something as basic, and simple to verify as a city's geographic location is not correct, I wonder about the research done in the first place, and the veracity of sources, or just simple double checking of facts.
   
   Other reviews that are so glowing are worrisome as well. It really does seem that the general public knows very little about geography!
   
   Enjoyable to read, yes to a point. It is like the 1940's movie version of Pride and Prejudice that was entertaining, but not true to the original book. I'm not sure I'll finish the book, but then again maybe I will.

5 comments about Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII.

1. I really enjoyed this book. I'd have given it a full five star rating if the author had not asked the same silly questions over and over again, and if he had written a little more on the later wives like Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard. However the book was very informative and interesting and I recommend it to those who wish to know more about the wives of Henry VIII.



2. I agree with another reviewer who felt that this book sets a tedious pace that is frequently bogged down by constantly rehashing the ups and downs of Henry's divorce trial, first from Catherine of Aragon's point of view and then Anne Boleyns. While the amount of material regarding Catherine of Aragon is enormous the writer does stop often to compliment himself (tasteless) and by the time Anne Boleyn comes on the scene the reader is exhausted.



3. I agree with unsolved fan and J.A. Miller, this book was by far the best book about the wives of King Henry than any others I've read.
   Starkey presents facts in such a way as to keep the reader thouroughly engaged, and looking forward to reading the next chapter.
   This book is quite fascinating. I've learned so much more from Starkey's book than from any history course.
   I recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn some of England's history and, to enjoy doing so.
   I wish he had spent more time on Katherine Parr, who seems to have been the most influential in bringing about reform in the churches of that day. That wife, Henry's last, was probably the most interesting and of a deep-thinking mind, than all his other wives, except for Catherine of Aragon, his first.
   I also totally disagree with the popularity of Anne Boleyn, now, in the movie theatres. Boleyn was not as worthy of attention and study, as are Catherine and Katherine.
   READ THIS BOOK! You'll be glad you did!



4. There have been numerous books written on the lives of Henry VIII's wives both as a complete history and on an individual basis. Starkey's book is an interesting read if you want to have a very in-depth understanding of just how incredibly political each of his marriages were. There are complaints that most of the book is spent on Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn but in looking at the history of these two women, they were the beginning of the making of Henry as well as England's history to come. Catherine of Aragon has been painted in some books as being a complete victim to be sympathized with for the harsh cruelty of Henry while he pursued Anne Boleyn. Starkey is not the first to intimate that she was actually a political machinist in her own right but he likes to present himself as being the first. Catherine's situation is no different than any other woman's reaction to "the other woman" so to imply that Catherine was not so obedient and submissive as she appeared is merely to say that perhaps she was at one point but came into her own as she progressed as Queen of England. That's psychology 101. Regarding Anne Boleyn, there's really nothing new painted about her specifically but there's a great deal of information presented about the true complexity of the divorce proceedings. This is truly the first book I've read that goes into just how many people were involved, what they actually did and how the hand-offs took place from person to person. In other works, only the most prominent figures in the picture are brought to light. The other wives did figure prominently in Henry's marriages from a very political standpoint. However, many authors outside of Starkey have indicated that there is little recorded information on each the successive wives especially in regards to Anne of Cleves. The one extreme criticism I have for Starkey and all the other authors regarding Catherine and the "consummation" of her marriage is the supposed evidence. Starkey follows the same path as all the others. I was hoping to see something more plausible. Every author states that the marriage must've been consummated based on two points of evidence. Arthur's boasting the following day of marriage being thirsty work and that he'd been amongst Spain and Catherine's silence on the subject. Why is it that every author does not take into consideration that Arthur was a 15 year old boy who carried the weight of an empire and was expected to perform his marital duties and therefore may have bragged because he couldn't state the other possibility....that he didn't perform? Regarding Catherine's silence on the subject and the question of "why didn't she complain?", she was a born princess. What princess/Queen who was 17 years old, in a foreign land and married to a King would complain that the marriage had not been consummated? To do so would be the equivalent of denigrating and humiliating her husband and a nation. The question is always left that only God knows whether the marriage was consummated or not. I beg to differ. There is one other person who would know if Catherine was a virgin and that would've been Henry. He was not sexually ignorant when he made Catherine his wife and where were his boasts? I recommend this book more for the political information surrounding the wives and what raised them and who truly took them down. Henry may have had final say but his court was very powerful in manipulating him. This book points this out more than any other out there.



5. I have never been able to put a book down before on Henry the VIII and his wives. After struggling to finish this book of exhausting but uninteresting detail, I thought I would sell it on Amazon, a first for me. But then, after checking, I learned it was only going for 87 cents. Why am I not surprised?