2 comments about Grandmama of Europe: The Crowned Descendants of Queen Victoria.

1. There's a famous painting by Tuxen (reproduced on the jacket of this fat volume) of Victoria's family gathered around her at the time of her Golden Jubilee in 1887; the crowd fills the royal drawing room. During those celebrations, the women of the family filled ten carriages while the men, including a number of ruling and future monarchs, made up an impromptu cavalry troop. Aronson is an old and skilled hand at producing popular biographies of European dynasties and he uses Victoria's position as matriarch of a vast royal clan to construct an overview in the late 19th and early 20th century of Europe's ruling families on ten thrones, from London and Madrid to Athens and St. Petersburg. This is also a personal and domestic study, focusing on court life, rather than a political history, and it is limited to only the first generation, not their heirs to the present day -- which also means that, except for the future Edward VIII, the author is concerned mostly with Victoria's daughters and granddaughters who married into other royal houses. The author's style is easy and his insights and judgments are astute, making this a good introduction to the modern monarchies of Europe.



2. This book has helped me on more than one occasion, to sort out Queen Victoria's huge family. The book only rates four stars, because I dislike the way it is organized. But the information, as well as the detailed lineage is wonderful. Many of Mr. Aronson's books are out of print, but I find them quite frequently at the Strand in NYC or other used bookstores.

5 comments about Diana--The Last Word.

1. I'm not really sure what to think of yet another Simone Simmons "Diana" book. I find it rather odd that Simone Simmons finds it necessary to write about her and Diana's personal, private conversations and not perceive it as a betrayal. She even lays the blame at Diana's feet. Insisting (again) that Diana told her to write these books! I don't believe that Diana said or did even half of the things that this woman professes. Where is the proof? Are we to take her at her word? Why? It appears that Diana, despite vast efforts to the contrary, trusted the wrong people. Simone Simmons was just one of them. Also, it's very convenient that Ms. Simmons doesn't disclose the fact that the reason she and Diana were no longer on speaking terms was because Simone Simmons was found to have been the person who alerted the media regarding Diana's relationship with Hasnat Kahn. Simmons was paid handsomely for her "inside" information. And now, after Diana's passing, she is earning money yet again with her tattling in these books. This woman is a parasite. She used Diana in life and is now using her in death. What could be worse?



2. After reading this book, I could only think that perhaps Simone is pathetic and self-centred and quite obviously jealous of Paul Burrell's (the princess's trusted butler) close friendship and loyalty to his highly respected boss Princess Diana. However, it is quite an interesting book, maybe there were some heart-to-heart women's talk in which Princess Diana would never have confided in Paul. Or perhaps Paul is totally aware of many events but chose to remain silence or just briefly mention in his books, out of his prefessionalism and respect for his boss. However, I doubt the authenticity of some contents written in Simone's book, especially the Kennedy junior flint. Having read books written by Simone (the best friend) and Paul (the butler), I would give my respect to Paul Burrell.
   p.s. Simone, how could you ever mention colon irrigation? And repeating it throughout the book?



3. Whilst Ms. Simmons has been slaughtered in the mass media over her revelations, it is interesting that since the inquest into Diana's death has begun, she appears to be receiving vindication on an almost daily basis.
   
   Whilst newspapers do not report the full facts, they are on the inquest website... but much of it was in Ms. Simmons's book published a couple of years ago.
   
   Simmons's writing style is accessible to all, covers some previously unexplored and fascinating insights into a fabulous woman and it is likely only to upset those who have created for themselves a fairytale illusion that they do not want shattered.
   
   Read it and accept what you like, read it and dismiss if you wish, but accept that Diana was a person not just a media image.



4. This is one of my favourite books about Diana, The Princess Of Wales.It is a genuine human book about a genuine human being.The ancedotes are what bring it to life such as Diana liking to wear blue nail polish but only on her toes.
   I fail to see why others are so critical of this book perhaps it comes to close to the truth for some people



5. This book is the worse form of petty gossip ever written. Definitely NOT historical, and should NOT be attributed to Diana's memories. This book should be called Simone Simmons: The lowest of the low.

No comments about Queen Elizabeth I and Her Court.

No comments about To Set Before A Queen.

1 comments about Henry and Mary Ponsonby: Life at the Court of Queen Victoria.

1. Henry & Mary Ponsonby: Life At The Court Of Queen Victoria by William M. Kuhn (Associate Professor of History, Carthage College) is the informed and informative, meticulous and scholarly biographical portrait of Henry and Mary Ponsonby, two high-ranking courtiers who served Queen Victoria during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Henry & Mary Ponsonby is an enthusiastically recommended, intimate portrayal of court life which offers unique insights into the recent history of Great Britain's royal family in general, and the court of Queen Victoria in particular.

5 comments about Richard III: England's Black Legend.

1. I have been fascinated by Richard III since I saw on TV , when I was seven years old , the 1955 Laurence Olivier adaptation of the Shakespeare play.
   
   
   In this book , Desmond Seward makes a compelling case for his theory that Richard III of England was indeed a bloodthirsty tyrant who cut down all who got in the way of his Machiavellian ambition , that the traditional view of Richard III (outlined dramtically by Shakespeare) is very near the truth.
   The author believes King Richard to have been the cruellest tyrant to have ever occupied the English throne . Seward gives seemingly incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed murder his young nephews in the tower , shining a new light on the tragedy of these boys. He outlines how Richard almost undoubtedly murdered Henry VI and very possibly Henry's son too.
   His death brought to an end , a nightmare for England , not least for Richard himself , who seward believes to have been highly paranoid , and disturbed by psychotic episodes.
   
   
   Seward re-examines contemporary sources , and also Sir Thomas Mores life of the King , which contained much valubale information that Seward brought to light.
   He gives us a history of events leading up to Richard's seizure of power , after the War of the Roses , analyses of the key power players in the England of the time producing the picture of a 'peculiarly grim young English precursor of Machiavelli's Prince'
   
   Defenders of Richard III have criticized this work , but is undoubdetly a major component in shedding light on the life of Richard III and the England of the times.



2. Reading this book is a good way to get to know the basic story of Richard III, and the related context of English history in the time of the "War of the Roses." To my mind, the greatest virtue of the book is Seward's recognition of Richard as a prince in the Machiavellian style: a ruthless, conniving tyrant. What is weakest in the book is the author's pronounced psychological naivete: even as he writes of Richard as an alert political strategist, willing to do anything to advance his own cause, the author interprets his attitudes and decisions as if they were being made by someone with average working-class values and education. Overall, though, the story is well-told, with a readable mix of engaging narrative and scholarly history.



3. While Seward makes some convincing arguments and successfully rebuts some Ricardian explanations, he does so in a horribly pretentious manner. He makes the constant claim that Richard was unpopular, which may have been so, but he does not bother to use reliable sources to prove it. He is also guilty of using the words 'obviously' and 'plainly' while not giving the reader any inication why he thinks these things are so obvious and plain. An example of this is found when Seward states, "When speaking of Richard, Commynes uses the word 'proud' more than once. Plainly he employs it in the sense of vain glory or self delusion. Had he known the word 'hubris' he would have used that too." Be that as it may, Seward does not offer any proof as to why he believes the word 'proud' is used to mean self delusion, and his assumption that the writer would have used 'hubris' hints of Seward's own pride and arrogance. This neglect to explain basic charges runs throughout the entire book, which makes it an almost unbearable read to one simply trying to find out the truth, rather than wallow in anti-Ricardian sentiment. Almost all historians of Richard III are guilty of writing from bias, but it is not usually so suffocating as this.



4. I got this as a result of seeing Ian McKellen's film version of the Shakespearean play. It left me wanting more History as well as more Drama. I had heard that Shakespeare was essentially writing anti-Richard propaganda, since the man who defeated him, Richmond, went on to become Henry VII grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. But while the truth is no doubt more complicated than the play suggests, Seward convincingly shows that Shakespeare got the essentials right even if he did take a few liberties. He doesn't merely elucidate the character of Richard himself, but of those around him. The Woodvilles, Ann, Catesby, Tyrell, Brackenbury, the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Stanley were all real players in Richard's rise and fall, well known at the time for their victimizations through or their contributions to his tyranny. (Catesby for example was known as the Cat in a popular rhyme of the day.) Seward gives an in depth though not necessarily complete view of the constraints and shared assumptions they were operating under which eventually leads to the characterization of the King himself. It's difficult to tell how much of Richard's tyranny stemmed from the bloodthirstiness of the times he lived in, or if good really triumphed over evil at Bosworth field, and Seward makes no assertions to that effect. But he does throw into sharp relief the flaws that earned Richard his bloody reputation, and they aren't saintly ones. He is also very clear cut about which primary sources he is drawing from, Thomas More, Dominic Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler, how they culled their information, and how he reads them. I'm sure there's a wealth of information on this subject, yet I found this book to be a very satisfying introduction.



5. This is an entertaining mixture of historical story-telling, scholary gumshoe work, and criticism. No aspect overpowers the book, which makes it an interestingly told history, and a well-shaped argument for Seward's perspective of Richard III's reign.

   Of course, so much of his work in the primary sources leads him to numerous conjectural qualifications. This state of affairs demonstrates why there is so much divergence of opinion on Richard III. However, if both Richard's contemporary subjects and their progeny have such a consistently malignant view of the man's rule, why go to such effort to rehabilitate (revisionize) him? It is obvious Richard's black legend is not solely a product of Tudor propaganda. The man simply did all the heavy lifting on establishing history's view of his reign.

   Seward's book is a good read. It's not a purely speculative, breathless narrative of "Maybe this happened, then that ... probably," but an argued case that approaches all of the sources in the field, primary and modern. This book has the potential to become the definitive history of Richard III and his reign; it simply lacks the appeals to cliched romanticism that surround much work in English history.

No comments about The Prince of Europe: The Life of Charles-Joseph De Ligne 1735-1814.

No comments about Diana (Diana Princess of Wales).

1 comments about Colonel Blood: The Man Who Stole the Crown Jewels.

1. The nonfiction biography "Colonel Blood: The Man Who Stole the Crown Jewels" by David C. Hanrahan had its good and bad moments. It wasn't among the best biographies I have ever read, but it did have shining moments that made me want to read about the lives of other people mentioned in the book.
   
   To start, "Colonel Blood" is about Thomas Blood, a seventeenth century veteran of the English Civil War who became an outlaw - and then, impossibly, became a favorite of King Charles II after Blood tried to steal from the king himself.
   
   The idea of reading the real-life story of the man who stole the English Crown Jewels from the Tower of London was what obviously attracted me to reading this book. I figured it had to be a fascinating story. Unfortunately, the writing itself was not what I expected.
   
   The writing is dry, for the most part. Many people are mentioned and are hard to keep track of. There is not much in terms of detail about the everyday lives of people living in seventeenth century Britain. There wasn't even that much detail about the Civil War.
   
   However, there were a couple chapters that fascinated me, mostly because the people themselves were so fascinating. Chapter 9 on George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, was an interesting portrait of a man of questionable morals, personally and politically. Chapter 12 on Charles II, the Merry Monarch, was also fascinating in its portrayal of a very self-indulgent man with dozens of mistresses, to his Queen's horror. The poor Queen was childless and had to suffer the humiliating presence of the King's mistresses and illegitimate children. I felt so bad for her.
   
   I'm not sure if this is the only biography on Colonel Blood. For me, it was hard to read (though I read it quickly) because it couldn't keep my attention. Too many people, names, incidences, etc. filled its pages without the author fleshing out their identities and stories more clearly. Honestly, I would have liked more. I would have also liked to have found Colonel Blood as interesting as some of the minor characters in the story, but it was not meant to be.

4 comments about The Diana Conspiracy Exposed: The Definitive Account.

1. Martyn Gregory STILL does not explain why the following happened!
   1. Why was a partial embalming done on Princess Diana while she lay in the French hospital.
   2. Why did street cleaners come into the tunnel just a few hours after the accident to clean the street where the accident was.
   3. Why did they reopen the tunnel just hours after the accident.
   4. Why was Henri Paul's blood packed with carbon monoxide.
   5. Why wouldn't anyone let Henri Paul's family do an independent study on Henri Paul's blood
   6. Why were witnesses that saw certain things eliminated from the investigation. And on and on and on. In my mind, Princess Diana was 'eliminated' by top professionals....and they got away with it. Read 'The Hidden Evidence and 'The Murder of Princess Diana'!



2. I'm still in the process of reading this book but two things are already apparent to me. 1. Mr. Gregory seems to have a powerful dislike for Mohamed al Fayed. 2.Since the wildest conspiracy theories don't hold up he seems to think that means none of the rumors could be true. I agree that the Princess likely did die in an accident but to absolutely rule out foul play is going too far. Many of Mr. Gregory's debunkings seem very well thought out and informative, even probable, I just have a feeling that something is missing.



3. Martyn Gregory's account of the couple's final journey is riddled with inaccuracies, distortions and falsehoods.



4. It is quite obvious that Mr. Gregory has done his homework here. There were several interesting details which I had not read before. He is very anti Al Fayed. But he did strain his credibility with me when he twice mentioned that JFK was assasinated in Houston. Mr. Gregory must be very young! I enjoyed the book. He argued his "case" very convincingly.