No comments about James I (Lancaster Pamphlets).

1 comments about Philip the Bold: The Dukes Of Burgundy.

1. Vaughan's series of books on Valois Burgundy have long been a staple for anyone interested Burgundian history and culture. After a long stretch of being out of print, and very difficult to find, these new editions are sure to be welcomed by many historians. Added to Vaughan's work is a fantastic new introduction written for the 2002 edition by Malcolm Vale (another historian I would readily recommend).
   While these works may be older, and more recent work has been done on Burgundy, Vaughan's scholarship is still first-rate. A must for the bookshelf of anyone interested in Valois Burgundy, or Northern Europe in the late 14th and 15th centuries.

2 comments about The Road to Mayerling: The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria.

1. The tragedy of Mayerling continues to intrigue us. I didn't learn anything startling in this book that I had not read in other books, but it was easy ready and the drama is as fresh today as it was a hundred years ago. We still don't know what was in Rudolph's mind when he killed Mary, and we cannot comprehend anyone agreeing to die at the brink of her adulthood for a dubious love to say the least. The intrigues that went on before the Great War, are still echoing in Europe today. How little the world changes.



2. If you are looking for a bit of fluff about this period of the Holy Roman Empire, this is not the book for you. It is instead a factual reporting of the history of these royal figures. This is a favorite period of history for me and having studied in Vienna there are many pleasant memories of the places mentioned in the book. There is no converation in this book. It really is a history book but a history book that holds your attention. A lot of research went into the formulation of this book and the author is to be praised. Enjoy!!!

1 comments about Edward VII's Children.

1. This is a enjoyable royal biography, and it's the first one that I have ever read that tell about the life of Queen Maud of Norway! Other books, barely mention her, but this author actually tell about her life and personality!
   
   The only thing I have against this book is that the author tends to focus more on King George V as well as Queen Maud instead of the other two children of Edward VII.

No comments about Madame De Pompadour: Images of a Mistress.

2 comments about Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart: The Perils of Marriage.

1. This would be a suitable book for a beginning student of Tudor-Stuart history, but is disappointing to one experienced in the area. It does not reach either Antonia Fraser's work Mary Queen of Scots or John Guy's True Life of Mary Stuart,both of which deal extensively with Elizabeth as well, and lacks the scholarship of Allison's Weirs Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley, or Jane Dunn's Elizabeth and Mary, Cousins, Rivals, Queens. As with every work written that involves the unhappy rivalry between the Queens, ( even Fraser's) it has a bias. No book that deals with the history of these two women should be read alone.



2. This book held my interest well until about 75% of the way through it. Then it got dull, and read more like a history text book. Also, a lot of time was spent on her childhood, and adulthood, but once she reached old age, very little time is spent on her and more instead on the others in her life. One minute I was reading about her declining years, the next, she was already dead and the book was talking about anyone else but her. So so book, I'd recommend waiting for the cheaper paperback edition and buying that used. Also didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know - no new insights or information.

5 comments about Queen Victoria's Gene (Pocket Biographies).

1. queen victoria was the grandmother of europe who brought hemophilla to many european royal houses that ended in great tragic.



2. I think I read this book for different reasons (and got different things out of it) than most of the previous reviewers. One of the first instances of "genetic genealogy" was the investigation into the roots of the hemophilia that plagued the czarevich Alexei of Russia, the only son of Nicholas II, who probably wouldn't have lived long enough to become czar even if the Bolsheviks hadn't liquidated the imperial family. But Victoria's son, Leopold, also died of complications of the disease, and it made its way into the Spanish royal family, as well. Where did the defective gene Victoria carried come from? There are only two medical possibilities: Either she was the victim of a random mutation -- one chance in about 50,000 -- or her father was hemophiliac. And since her father, Edward, Duke of Kent, did *not* have the disease, that would mean Victoria was illegitimate, the offspring of a hemophiliac lover of the Duchess of Kent. The duchess certainly *did* have a lover, and it's also possible, from all the evidence, that the duke was sterile. In which case, the throne should rightfully have gone to King William III's next closest relative, . . . and who would that have been? This is quite a fascinating detective story, investigating in considerable depth the private lives of the Coburgs, and it leaves one to wonder how the 19th century in Britain might have been different if Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and subsequently king of Hanover (a very distasteful individual by all accounts, and a very unpopular ruler), had become king of Great Britain. (His eldest living descendant in the male line today is Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover and present husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco.)



3. This book was very interesting. It is a story of Genes. It tells the story about Queen Victoria and her family. Two of her daughters, Alice (As well as two daughters and a son), and Beatrice (as well as two sons and a daughter) were carriers of a disease called hemophilia and her son Leopold (As well as a daughter) had the disorder. One might wonder what the mystery is about it. Well it is this, where did the three children get the disorder? Because the daughters were carriers of it they could not have gotten it from there father Albert, so it must have been Victoria. One problem is that supposedly comes from one the most well documented families off all time (The family can trace there lineage to Adam and Eve) that leaves three posiblities-1. That she is not the Granddaughter of King George III 2. Her mother (Victoria of Sax-Coburg) was a carrier-which turned out to be false or 3. There was a spontaneous combustion of the egg or sperm that made Victoria. The authors get into all three of these hypotheses in order to try to understand just how Victoria got the gene for hemophilia. The authors also delve into the lives of the people who had hemophilia and tells about some of the pretenders to the thrones descendent from Queen Victoria and how with the knowledge of the gene people have figured out they are fakes.



4. It's too bad so many reviewers and editors chose to focus on the small part of this book which questions Queen Victoria's legitimacy, because that's not really what this book is about. It's far more about how the interbreeding of British and other European royalty had profound consequences for world history. The bulk of the book traces the competitive sexual politics prior to Victoria's birth, and the way inbreeding among royalty contributed to the spread of the hemophilia gene, causing major world upheaval (in particular, to the fall of the Russian tsar). Much has been written of the privileges of 19th century royalty, but this book brings into sharper focus the way these royals' private behavior had public consequences. An interesting treatise on an aspect of history that is often overlooked: that many European wars were family conflicts extended to a grand scale.



5. This book is really partly a discussion on how Victoria passed on a gene for Haemophilia and its immense influence on later European politics, but also hugely influential, and not included in the title, were the overweening ambitions of Leopold in the scheme of European Royalty.

   Following his marriage to The heir to the English throne, Princess Charlotte, in 1817 I had thought he had faded out of existence, he was hardly a major player, so to speak, in the scheme of things then. I had forgotten his connection with Queen Victoria's mother, and it was again Leopold's influence which made Prince Albert, Victoria's husband - and then he really got workin on Europe for his relatives - even Brazil and Mexico got Leopold dynastic ambitions during their brief flirtations with the monarchy.

   The first chapter is really an introduction of Leopold but it is mainly in this first part that the genetics of Queen Victoria are examined. Where did the gene for Haemophilia arise and why, after generations of pophyria in the royal family (traced back for hundreds of years) was there a sudden stop to this,and rise to a completely new genetic disease. I don't know that the authors really made their point. I thought the discussion was interesting but the conclusions were a bit tenuous. In the end there was no possible candidate for the male haemophiliac who could have been Victoria's father. It is all very well discussion all the possibilities of how a gene might transfer from generation to generation but it would have been more convincing if they could have really put up some candidates - or at least one viable candidate anyway.

   The influence of the gene on later generations of European royalty was quite profound and I thought that was presented well by the book. I really enjoyed the chapter by chapter presentation of the gene's movements through other royal families in Europe as well as its still possible presence in the lesser branches of the Spanish Royal family. Each royal family or incident is presented as a single chapter and the ramifications are simply discussed. Certainly the guiding hand of Leopold on each succeeding generation is still very comprehensive.

   I wish the authors had used more, or better Family trees though. There were an awful lot of names and relationships to follow and not all were even represented in a family tree at all. Also finding the family trees to refer back to them was pretty awkward at times as they were scattered through the book.

   I don't know that this is really an academic book for those that are interested in royal watching. It doesn't present itself as well as it might. The conclusions are often very vague - if there are conclusions at all. However as a start point for a slightly different look at the influence of Victoria, and Leopold on European royalty it is definitely worth dipping in to. I probably would have given it 3 and a half stars rather than 3 given the choice, but it isn't a brilliant book - just interesting.

5 comments about Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I.

1. I certainly agree that this book suffers greatly from a too-evident lack of editing. Nevertheless, the premise is ultimately fascinating and stunning in its impact.
   
   I've long been dismayed by the tendency of Stratfordians to jump to marginally warranted conclusions about the "facts" of Shakespeare's life. (Read any of the major biographies carefully, and you'll soon observe how very quickly phrases such as "it seems" and "it seems certain" transform smoothly into conclusions that then are spoken of as if proven facts.) Thus, to be fair, I must admit that Mr. Streitz develops a fascinating but similarly unproven thesis about Oxford's relationships with both Elizabeth I and Southampton. The difference, it seems to me, is that his theory provides a context that makes startling sense of the tone taken in several of Shakespeare's more puzzling sonnets.
   
   Intrigued by Streitz's analysis of the significance of "Venus and Adonis," I left off his book and fetched my copy of the poem and read it straight through. Frankly, considering the poem's content in view of Mr. Streitz's suggested context was not only stunning but left me with chills for some time thereafter. His context renders the poem not merely darkly erotic but shatteringly so. Viewed relative to the whole of Streitz's theory, it is absolutely chilling.
   
   An extremely intriguing book without a doubt. I'd suggest reading this in conjunction with Diana Price's SHAKESPEARE'S UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY. Both raise quite compelling doubts about the connection of the "Man from Stratford" with the works.



2. First of all, this book isn't worth fifty bucks. I spents all my birthday money on it, and I was disappointed.
   
   Second of all, it's pretty obvious this guy doesn't like Elizabeth much. I don't know if it's anti-feminism, or what, but he makes some pretty rotten accusations against her. He seems to use Mary Queen of Scots as his main source that anything happened between Elizabeth and Oxford. In case no one noticed, Mary isn't a very good source. Mary and Elizabeth didn't like each other and they both loved to say nasty things about the other one. Philip II isn't a good source either. Using Mary and Philip as sources is like calling up Severus Snape and asking for a biography of Harry Potter. You aren't going to get very goood info. She was a decent woman, and a decent ruler, but Mr. Streitz seems bent on proving she wasn't.
   
   Second of all, it's pretty obvious he didn't do his research. He can't seem to remember how old these people are at given times. He says Elizabeth was 13 when she had Oxford. Actually, she would've been 14 or 15 depending on whether or not she had him after her birthday. I'm just a kid, but even I know basic math. And he said Jane Grey was Mary Tudor's daughter, but she was her grandaughter. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Tudor history would know that right away.
   
   Third of all, he does actually have something here. It seems to me that he found a bunch of wholes and history and decided to fill them up with one answer. I don't think Elizabeth had all those kids he talked about, I mean maybe she was pregnant after what her step-dad did to her, but I don't really see any proof it was Oxford. However, Oxford could of thought he was King of England. Not because of who his parents were, but just cause of his ego. Essex probably wasn't her kid (despite what the book says) but he seemed to think he was king. The only concrete evidence he had was the play in 1609: "To our ever-living poet" They tend not to say that about people who aren't dead. So maybe Oxford was Shakespeare, or atleast he wrote some stuff for him (I think it was more than one person). But I don't think he was the Queen's son, and I'm a little offended by his Elizabeth dissing and his elitist attitude "Shakespeare was poor and poor people can't write!".
   
   In conclusion:
   Don't buy it, borrow it if you get the chance.
   Try another Oxfordian book for a better look at things.
   Mr. Streitz should learn his dates. (hey that rhymed!)
   
   
   - J.
   [...]



3. Try Shakespeare by Another Name first... And the Wives of Henry the XIIIth and then go back to this one.



4. Paul:
   
   I finished reading it and I am somewhat at a loss for words to express my opinions.
   
   * Absolutely fascinating book.
   * Remarkably interesting for me.
   * Almost unbelievably detailed.
   * Astonishingly insightful, superlatively written with a fabulous command of the English language and a profound intellect.
   
   I cannot imagine how you found the time to absorb so much information and then detail it in writing. Meticulous.
   
   I spent my career in areas of Earth Science and geology so I am accustomed to "detective work" fossil identification, geological sequences, unraveling the past, using clues to seek out facts. Further, I have an intense interest is archaeology and anthropology as well as history so this book provided an abundance of information about life in the Elizabethan era that I knew little about. Now a void has been filled.
   
   My other readings attributed the KJV bible to Sir Francis Bacon so I will have some reconciling to do.
   
   William E. Tibbe, Sr. Chestnut Ridge, New York



5. It sounds plausible. Compare the pictures of Henry VIII, Elizabeth, Edward de Vere, Sir Henry Neville, and Henry Wriothesly, the Earl of Southampton. They all have red hair, and look remarkably similar. It is begining to look like Edward and the two Henrys could have been brothers!! Sir Henry Neville became very fat in middle age - like Henry VIII. He was an only child - rather rare in those days.
   
   Read "The Truth Will Out" by Brenda James - who makes a very good case for Sir Henry Neville being Shakespeare. He was tutored by Sir Henry Saville, top Oxford scholar, and several hundred coincidences link him to the works of Shakespeare.
   
   The two Henrys were put in the Tower together, under sentence of death for their part in the Essex plot to depose Elizabeth.
   
   But why were they were not put to death like the other plotters? - because they were Elizabeths children?
   
   I wonder if the skeletons of all these people are available? We could test their dna!
   
   If Sir Henry Neville was the son of Elizabeth, and wrote the plays - and also wrote the sonnets to his "brother" the Earl of Southampton - it is not surprising that it was kept secret - a state secret no less. Hamlet, and To Be or Not To Be, was written while the two Henrys were in the Tower under sentence of death.
   
   Worth reading.

1 comments about Juan Carlos: El rey de un pueblo / The King of the People (Best Seller).

1. El autor, Paul Preston, es un distinguido profesor inglés que ha dedicado años de atención a la historia de España antes y después de la Guerra Civil. En esta publicación, traducida del original en inglés, nos presenta una biografía detallada de este extraordinario ser humano que ha sabido lidiar toda su vida con más de una circunstancia adversa. La edición está ilustrada con muchas fotos de la familia real desde comienzos del siglo XX y del propio Juan Carlos, a través de los años. Como señala Luis María Anson de la Real Academia Española: es un libro lúcido, penetrante, certero, respaldado por un arsenal de datos.

5 comments about Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet.

1. If you are remotely interested in the reign of Akhenaten, which most of us interested in Egyptology are, you can find enough different depictions of the man to leave you thoroughly confused. Was he a pragmatic politician out to break the power of the Amun priesthood (Aldred)? A megalomaniac who enjoyed watching his people broil in the noon-day sun (Redford)? A predecessor of Moses seeking truth in monotheism (Hornung and Lorton)? The deranged gay lover of his brother Smenkhkare (Allen Drury?) Or something else? Where Reeves sticks to the generally-agreed facts provided by recent research, he produces a good and very readable book on the Amarna period. But his own theories, many of them still controversial among Egyptologists (that Smenkhkhare was really another name for Nefertiti, that the late 18th Dynasty were a homicidally dysfunctional family in which Akhenaten, Nefertiti and Tutankhamen were all murdered in succession, that the skeleton found in a disordered tomb near Tutankhamen's is actually that of Akhenaten, and that the woman's mummy found in a side room of the tomb of Amenhotep II is Nefertiti) keep getting in the way of the facts. In order to get a really thorough view of Akhenaten, I recommend reading all of the above treatments (well, maybe not Drury, since it is admittedly a novel), which will show you not the whole truth about Akhenaten, but how much we DON'T know about him after over a century of research.



2. Akhenaten has to be one of the most fascinating characters in Egyptian history and the deliberate destruction of much the documentation of his historical legacy by subsequent Pharaohs often leaves the Amarna period open to the wildest of speculations. Nicholas Reeves presents a wealth of information in this book, often including many quotes from original sources and photos of original art work so that the readers can judge some of his conclusions for themselves.
   
   The book is carefully researched and the general argument that Akhenaten used his religious beliefs to legitimate his power is well supported by the evidence quoted. This does not of course preclude the notion that Akhenaten was sincere in his beliefs and Reeves does not suggest this. In fact it seems far from illogical that a ruler of ancient Egypt could have believed he was the son of god.
   
   Many of the conundrums of Amarna history are argued in a very balanced way in the book. Reeves effectively debunks the theories that Akhenaten was homosexual or that his appearance in statuary was due to Froehlich's syndrome. He provides interesting evidence in relation to suggestions that Akhenaten may or may not have suffered from Marfan's syndrome and that Nerfertiti may or may not have been promoted to the status of co-regent. At times, however, Reeves takes fairly extreme positions based on somewhat flimsy evidence. He claims that Akhenaten's 'dictatorial rule' led Egypt to the 'brink of disaster', that Akhenaten's rule involved 'wanton destruction' and 'deliberate neglect'. He describes the later years of Amarna as a 'terror' and suggests that Pharaoh's lover Kiya had an evil personality and may have been pulling strings behind the scene. These extreme positions are supported with arguments based on evidence where the author and purpose of the documents quoted is often ignored. One document marshalled in favor of the sorry state Egypt had descended into was written by a priest of Amun, who would obviously have had a significantly biased agenda.
   
   Overall though, the book is extremely readable and paints a fascinating picture of power politics in Egypt, where priests, generals and the Pharoah himself vie for power and influence in a manner so typical of politics throughout the history of mankind that it certainly rings true.



3. The subject of Reeves' book is Akhenaten; a Pharoah who attempted to remake Egyptian society from country where a host of gods and idols were worshipped to a monothiestic society which recognized only one god: the Aten, or sun disc.
   
   Reeves looks further back than most other authors for the origins of the Aten cult, seeing not just the trend of a priesthood that was becoming more and more politically powerful but also in other events during the 17th and 18th Dynasties which might have effected Akenaten's thinking. Reeves also discusses archeological proof as he tells the story (as it is known) and writes about different theories to explain this or that. Reeves does NOT fall into the trap of discussing the Aten cult as predecessor or influence on Judaism, which has become fashionable as of late. Overall, a good book.



4. If you are fascinated with ancient Egypt, do not miss this non-fiction book about Pharaoh Akhenaten,which reads like a well-written novel. The mysterious Pharaoh Akhenaten, who tried to introduce one god, Aten, and overthrow the all the other gods, and became known as the "great heretic" is one of the most interesting and debated historical figures of all time. It is beautifully illustrated with photographs. It also has an early section that summarizes the history of the period up to that point, and it continues on to the reign of his son Tutankhamun. Worth the photographs alone, but well written, not dry.



5. If you've read one Akhenaten title you've basically read them all. As with the countless versions which have preceeded Mr. Reeves treatment of the socalled False Prophet, the author reproduces and supports many of the curious claims surrounding the Amarna periods infamous ruler. One area the author appears to make headway is in identifying Amenophis III with the Aten. In detailing Amenophis III and his adoption of the Aten personna as his "deified physical manifestation", Mr. Reeves appears to defend Akhenaten from the status of "False prophet", but he quickly backpeddles and returns to the normal persecution completely ignoring his own statements.
   
   So was Akhenaten a mad religious zealot or merely a devoted son expressing loyalty and love for his departed father? Was Akhetaten a new capitol city or simply the grandest form of tribute to the man whom truly gave him life? If Akhetaten was indeed the capitol city as is claimed then it appears that the new Pharoah was more of a visionary than many of his predecessors as the location of this new city was a centralized location. Halfway between the old capitols of southern and northern Egypt "as Mr. Reeves points out". This would serve to unify the country and make the Pharoah and his court more accessible to the population and not isolate them as is claimed in this book. Another curious and unverified claim adopted by the author from previous sources is the decline of the Egyptian empire under Akhenaten. As I have said this is an often repeated claim which is never verified. None of the authors who preach of the Egyptian empires decline under Akhenaten ever present verifiable facts to support their claim and Mr. Reeves is no differnt.
   
   Most desturbing is the introduction of often repeated claims of incest on behalf of Akhenaten, again I would ask where except in the mind of the author is the proof of this? What Mr. Reeves does is introduce some very interesting ideals only to shrink back into long excepted ideals and accusations. I can only speculate as to the reason for Egyptology's deep animosity toward Akhenaten as he is befar the most reviled figure in Egypt's history. The hatred expressed for the man and his ideals by those who study him from a distance seperated by thousands of years is almost always skewed in the most vile manner. The use of bricks and usurption of temples constructed by Akhenaten by later rulers is helf up as proof of the hatred the man engendered with his ideals. Yet it is completely ignored that Ramesses "the offending Pharoah" did the same to his own father's constructions. So was Akhenaten anymore hated than any of his predecessors by his own or he simply viewed as a threat by outsiders struggling to make sense of a history long ago written?