The History Book Club discussion

I've reposted this message from Koleen

April 26,20014
To whom may concern:
first off something to say I love the Georgian era, Victorian era, Regency era,
and Edwardian era. so I read a lot about this era.
I give book
this book called Twilight of Splendor: The Court of Queen Victoria During Her Diamond Jubilee Year by the author Greg King,
A highly Recommendation I found it vary interesting. it there any one out there whom love read and learn about the Georgian era, Victorian era, Regency era,
and Edwardian era? what do you think of this era in history. and would love discuss this book and other of Georgian era, Victorian era,Regency era, Edwardian era?

Best regard
Koleen

by Greg King (no photo)

Great photos

Happy third anniversary to William and Kate. Wishing you health and happiness.

The Kings & Queens of England: The Biography

by David Loades (no photo)

Synopsis:

This is the history of the men and women who have occupied the highest position in English and later British society. For about a thousand years, they were superior lords, the leaders of nobility, which ruled; and for about three hundred years thereafter they were sovereigns, whose servants ruled in their name. Now, with the rise of democracy, they no longer rule. The Queen is a symbol and a social leader, vastly experienced in the ways of the world, and the head of a family, which strives to be useful in a modern community. The records of the monarchy vary from one period to another, and many of them are political in nature. However, it is always necessary to remember the human being behind the constitutional facade. This is an attempt to recover their identities.

I am very interested in the coronation aspect of the British Monarchy, which was based around an archaic prophesy surrounding the Stone of Destiny. Is there any information regarding the nature of this prophesy in the book. Thanks, Richard.

I couldn't tell you, Richard, I have not read it.

Richard wrote: "I am very interested in the coronation aspect of the British Monarchy, which was based around an archaic prophesy surrounding the Stone of Destiny. Is there any information regarding the nature of ..."

I read this book a couple of years ago and I seem to remember a discussion of the coronation ceremony and how it came into being. But, don't hold me to that since it was a while ago since I read it.

Shooting Victoria: Madness, Mayhem, and the Rebirth of the British Monarchy

by Paul Thomas Murphy (no photo)

Synopsis:

A history of Victorian England as seen through the eight assassination attempts on the queen's life, ranging from attacks by lone madmen to one of the first modern terrorist plots.

A New York Times Notable Book of 2012

Shooting Victoria is historical narrative at its most thrilling, from the cloak and dagger nature of several of the assassination attempts, to Victoria’s brilliant responses to the attacks, alongside astute analysis of how these events actually revitalized the British monarchy at a time when monarchy was quickly becoming unpopular abroad. While thrones across Europe toppled, the Queen’s would-be assassins contributed greatly to the preservation of the crown and to the stability that it enjoys today. After all, according to Victoria herself, “It is worth being shot at—to see how much one is loved.”

Thanks for the add Jerome.

The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty

by Jeffrey S. Hamilton (no photo)

Synopsis:

The story of the Plantagenet dynasty is the story of one of the pivotal ages in English history. Attitudes and outlooks were formed with regard to a vast array of profoundly important issues. Such fundamental issues as the relationship between church and state, the nature of government/governance, the interaction of social and economic classes, and ultimately the idea of what it means to be English were all shaped to a great degree by the events of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

I think we mentioned this book somewhere earlier, Jerome but it is always worth a repeat. I always feel that the Plantagents are overlooked in the scheme of things and that people know more about the Tudors, only because of those bigger than life figures, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. They don't realize that the Pantagenets were responsible for many important social changes in England.

England's Queens: The Biography

by Elizabeth Norton

Synopsis:

The only comprehensive history available of the lives of every English queen and queen consort from the earliest Saxon queens to the House of Windsor.• Fabulously illustrated with almost 250 illustrations, 180 in color.• A wonderful narrative history laced with the words of the queens themselves.Nearly eighty women have sat on the throne of England, either as queen regnant or queen consort and the voices of all of them survive through their own writings and those of their contemporaries. The primary role of the queen over the ages was to provide an heir. Catherine of Aragon found this to her cost, divorced by Henry VIII for failing to produce a healthy son. The birth of an heir was also a route to power for a queen and Eleanor of Aquitaine became the most powerful woman in Europe during the reigns of her sons.

Strong relationships could also develop between the queens and their husbands. Edward VIII even abandoned his throne when forced to choose between the crown and his lover, Wallis Simpson. Not all marriages were happy and queens such as Isabella of France and Catherine Howard took lovers to escape their marriages. The unhappy Sophia Dorothea of Celle was imprisoned for over thirty years by her husband George I when her affair was discovered. Her lover, Count von Konigsmarck was murdered. Most queens made arranged marriages and were used by their families to build alliances. Some queens were able to break away from this control. Queen Victoria spent her childhood secluded with her overprotective mother, even sharing the same bedroom until the day when she was proclaimed queen and finally freed herself from her mother's control. For the first time, the voice of each individual queen can be heard together, charting the course of English queenship through nearly two thousand years of history.

Crown and Country: A History of England Through the Monarchy

by David Starkey

Synopsis:

David Starkey looks at the monarchy as a whole, charting its history from Roman times, to the Wars of the Roses, the chaos of the Civil War, the fall of Charles I and Cromwell's emergence as Lord Protector - all the way up until the Victorian era when Britain's monarchs came face-to-face with modernity.

Another of the series of books that break down all types of subjects into laymans' language. The author takes on the British Monarchy in this fun book.

The British Monarchy for Dummies

by Philip Wilkinson(no photo)

Synopsis:

The monarchy is at the heart of British life. If you're going to understand Britain and its history, you need to understand the story of its royal family. This lively guide walks you through the history of the British monarchy from the earliest times to the present day and covers the colourful characters, extraordinary events, power struggles, and politics that have shaped one of the most famous institutions in the world.

Discover the origins of the British monarchy, how the monarchy works, the relationship between the royal family and the general public, how the role of the monarch has changed over time and what the monarch and the rest of the royal family do all day(

Update from Reuters on the death of King Richard III. Interesting stuff.

LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists in Britain have given blow-by-blow details of King Richard III's death at the Battle of Bosworth more than 500 years ago and say two of many blows to his bare head could have killed him very swiftly.

Their analysis of the remains of the last English monarch to die in battle suggest he was attacked by one or more people, and that nine of 11 blows, clearly inflicted in battle, were to his skull and another possibly fatal blow was to his pelvis. The findings also support previous opinion that he had no helmet on.

The head injuries are consistent with some near-contemporary accounts of the battle, the researchers said in findings published in The Lancet medical journal on Wednesday.

"The wounds to the skull suggest that he was not wearing a helmet, and the absence of defensive wounds on his arms and hands indicate that he was otherwise still armored at the time of his death," said Sarah Hainsworth, a professor of materials engineering at Leicester University, who co-led the study.

The remains of King Richard III were found by archaeologists under a municipal car park in the central English city of Leicester in 2012 and subsequently identified by experts from the city's university.

A court ruled in May this year that the king should be reburied near to where he was slain in battle, dashing the hopes of descendants who had wanted his remains to be taken back to his northern English stronghold of York.

According to historical record, the monarch was killed in battle on Bosworth Field, near Leicester, on Aug. 22, 1485, and those accounts suggest Richard was forced to abandon his horse after it became stuck in a mire and was then killed fighting.

His death was the culmination of the Wars of the Roses, a bloody 30-year power struggle between Richard's House of York and the rival House of Lancaster.

Hainsworth's team used whole body computerized tomography (CT) scans and micro-CT imaging to analyze trauma to the bones and determine which of Richard's wounds might have proved fatal.

They also analyzed tool marks on bone to identify the medieval weapons potentially responsible for his injuries.

According to Guy Rutty, a pathologist on the research team, "the most likely injuries to have caused the king's death are the two to the inferior aspect of the skull -- a large sharp force trauma possibly from a sword or staff weapon, such as a halberd or bill, and a penetrating injury from the tip of an edged weapon."

An insider look at the rather mundane Hanover dynasty......or was it as mundane as it first appears?

The First Four Georges

by J.H. Plumb (no photo)

Synopsis:

In this volume, the author has written a book whose value as pure history is no less than its interest as a study of four essentially ordinary people under extraordinary circumstances. He was the first to appreciate the complexity of George I, and he surveys the following three Georges with a similarly unjaundiced eye. His analysis of the four kings shows just what effect their reigns had on the history of their time. Whether or not the loss of the American colonies is generally regarded as inevitable or the fault of the crown, Professor Plumb shows that the influence of the monarchy was paramount in many other respects during the 116 years of their reigns.

This is a story I have been following for some time. There are many articles out today discussing the official news that a skeleton found is indeed Richard III's remains.

IT'S OFFICIAL: SKELETON FOUND UNDER PARKING LOT IS RICHARD III

A COMBINATION OF DNA EVIDENCE AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH CONFIRM THE REMAINS BELONG TO THE MISSHAPEN MONARCH

By Mary Beth Griggs



One of the biggest missing person’s cases in the world has finally been solved. Or, at least, the biggest missing corpse case.

After English King Richard III fell at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 (his death was not a pleasant one) the exact location of his final resting place was lost to history. Then, two years ago, archaeologists found a skeleton that resembled Richard’s description under a parking lot. Preliminary reports on DNA provided further evidence that this was the king, but the official findings of the researchers involved in the identification had not been published before today.

In a paper published in the journal Nature Communications, a team of researchers led by Turi King and Kevin Schürer announced that they had officially made a positive identification of Richard III. In order to prove that the skeleton was, in fact, Richard III, King and Schürer used all the tools at their disposal -- from genetics to historical research.

The biggest piece of evidence was mitochondrial DNA. Passed down through female relatives of Richard III (he had no direct descendants), a match was found between not one, but two known descendants of Richard’s relatives and the skeleton. The descendants, Wendy Duldig and Michael Ibsen, aren’t exactly close relatives. They are 14th cousins twice removed, and their last common ancestor lived in the first part of the 16th century. Nonetheless, both met the criteria of having one unbroken female line of ancestors between each of them and Anne of York, Richard’s oldest sister.

In addition to the genetic data, there's the location of the remains. The parking lot in Leicester was excavated in 2012, because researchers believed it was the spot where the Greyfriars Church used to be--supposedly the last resting place of Richard III. The king's body was reportedly carried there after he was killed at the nearby Battle of Bosworth. Additionally, the remains themselves show a slight curvature to the spine, which could have given the individual one shoulder that was higher than the other--physical features that were exaggerated into a hunchback by Shakespeare, who immortalized the king as "that bottled spider, that foul bunch-back'd toad" in his play, Richard III.

The mitochondrial DNA match was a huge piece of the puzzle, but just to make absolutely sure they had the right guy, the researchers covered their historical bases. Mitochondrial DNA could have been shared by other relatives of Richard who were alive at the same time he was. To eliminate the possibility of a contemporaneous body double with similar genetics, Schürer combed through the history books and genealogies tracking down any relatives of Richard’s who were around the same age and who might have been at the Battle of Bosworth. Of the 82 candidates, most were already dead by the time of the battle or died at a later date. Only one, Robert Eure, was unaccounted for, and records show that he was a Knight of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, so he was likely overseas when the battle of Bosworth took place.

While the mitochondrial DNA and historical research show that Richard III was Richard III, one line of inquiry didn’t pan out for the researchers. They also tried to get confirmation of Richard’s identity through DNA passed down through the male line. Unfortunately, they discovered that there was at least one place along the line that had broken. That means at least one person along the family tree had a biological father that was different from the father written down on his or her birth certificate. So in addition to positively identifying the remains of Richard (even without the Y chromosome match, the researchers are 99.999 percent sure that it’s him) the researchers uncovered some particularly juicy family secrets.

The DNA from Richard III’s remains also gives us a better picture of what he looked like. None of the portraits painted of Richard III while he was alive survived to the present, and only a few were painted in the early 1500s after his death. DNA evidence shows that one of them, from the Society of Antiquaries of London, is more accurate, correctly depicting his blue eyes and lighter hair color.
Richard III’s remains are expected to reach their next resting place in March, when the monarch will be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral. For more information, watch a video of King and Schürer discussing their conclusions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYY-u...

(source: http://www.popsci.com/its-official-sk...)

(Picture source: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-envir...)

New book on the subject.

Digging for Richard III: The Search for the Lost King

by Mike Pitts (no photo)

Synopsis:

In 2012, archaeologists found the grave of Richard III. Its sight had been unknown for centuries. The quest had taken years of preparation followed by intensive archaeological study and almost no one had expected a result. As the astonishing story of hte discovery emerged, millions watched around the world.

First came the news that archaeologists were searching for a king in a parking lot. Next it was said they had located the church where Richard had been buried. Finally it was annoucned that a skeleton with a curved spine and battle wounds had been found and was thought to be that of Richard. Archaeologists urged caution as media frenzy led to questions in Parliament. The scientific consensu came early in 2013. All the studies, including analysis of anatomy, DNA, high-resolution scanning and a digital facial reconstruction, led to the conclusion that the skeleton was indeed Richard III, England's most disputed monarch and the probable murderer of the Princes in the Tower.

The events of Richard III's reign and his death in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth are known worldwide, amde popular by Shakespeare's most performed, filmed and translated history play. Digging for Richard III is the page-turning story of how his grave was found and the people behind the discovery. It is the first complete narrative of a project that blended passion, science, luck and detection. Told by a noted archaeologist with access to all the parties involved, it follows the quest from an idea born in an Edinburgh bookshop to the day, fourteen years later, when two archaeologists carefully raised the bones from the parking lot in Leicester, and the scientific studies that resulted.

The vivid tale of a king, his demise and his rediscovery, this is also an insider's gripping account of how modern archaeology, forensics and the meticulous analysis of clues can come together to create a narrative worthy of the finest detective fiction.

Thanks for that update, Teri. We have talked about that find over the last year. One of the things that history had wrong about Richard is that he was a "humpback" or "hunchback" which medically is known as kyphosis. Instead, they found a lateral curvature of the spine which is a condition called scoliosis. It is possible that in those days, anyone with a spinal deformity was called "humpback" and that description of Richard came down through history.

The BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-envir...) goes into more detail about the DNA analysis and surmises that his paternity is now up for question. So, does that affect the royal lineage of the current rulers? Likely there are other breaks in the lineage so I suppose not, but there are more questions now because of the findings. However, we now have some answers, too.

I just find this kind of information fascinating. It helps make these characters that we read about in history more real.

The whole situation fascinating and might make the current royal family a bit nervous!!!
Thanks so much.

Supposedly there weren't any breaks in lineage and, as such, any idea that the Queen's rule (or lack of it) is legitimate due to her being a descendant of former kings of Great Britain, England and Scotland might be discredited. In that case, she should abdicate and renounce to her own claim to the throne as well as those of the Royal Family, be secured by the two main British political parties or base her legitimacy on the British people's choice.

Jose interesting viewpoint but we are not political here and would not advocate one way or the other. I for one find the Royal Family fascinating and have great admiration for the queen even though in the US we started our journey with an antithesis towards anything that had an scent of a monarchy or king. We are enamored with the British Royal Family over here but do not want one of our own (lol). I think most of England is happy with their monarch and it really does help bring a lot of money to England in terms of tourism, etc and folks are also enamored with all things royal including little Prince George.

The Windsors: A Dynasty Revealed

by Piers Brendon (no photo)

Synopsis:

From its foundation in 1917 to the present day, here is the story of The House of Windsor, based on private papers and personal reminiscences from George V to Prince Charles and Princess Diana. The authors explain and analyze how the monarchy has re-created itself down through the ages, surviving crises like WW1 (when the dynasty changed its German name), the abdication of King Edward VIII, royal divorces and the death of Diana. The authors also explore the crucial role of the press – from the organized silence which surrounded Wallis Simpson to the creation of Diana as a media icon.

I am interested in reading about Edward II. can anyone recommend any good books that will give me an insight into his life without too much of the speculation that goes with his life. I am looking for something well researched and fact based.

Scotty....here are two books that are quite informative and might be what you are looking for regarding Edward II.

by J.R.S. Phillips (no photo)
by Harold F. Hutchison(no photo)

Thank you Jill.

The remains of King Richard III have finally been put to rest in Leicester Cathedral. The bones of the infamous King were found under a car park in 2012 and have been studied extensively to ensure that it is indeed Richard III.

For a complete description of the service, go to the following link. It is quite interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/wor...


(Photo source: Wikipedia)

Having learning a bit about Mary, Queen of Scots at primary school and getting to visit places like Edinburgh Castle and Holyrood Palace I became quiet interested in her life, however I hadn't read anything about her in almost 30 years until I discovered this book by What a fantastic book that turned out to be, John well deserved his award for it in my opinion.
That book in turn opened up my interest in this period of history all over again, and as a direct result I have ordered a few more books. This one by arrived today and I have the following books on order
by
by

I'm really looking forward to getting stuck into these books and bringing history to life all over again.

Neil.....lots of good books there. I would ask that you cite them all at the bottom of your text for easier reading.....and don't forget the author's link after the author's picture. Thanks so much.

Neil....here are the examples of the book citations with the author's link as mentioned above. You might want to visit our Mechanics of the Board for a complete explanation and instructions on citing books. Thanks, Neil.

Mechanics of the Board

by Linda Porter
by John Guy
by Alison Weir
by Alison Weir

Jill could you please show him all of the others. Thanks.

Jill, I just wanted to update you. I've received the book. Edward II that you recommended. Looking forward to reading and I will give you a review when I'm done.

Tweet Regarding the Queen Goes Wrong for the BBC

A rogue tweet by a BBC reporter after an obituary rehearsal led several major international news organisations to wrongly report that Queen Elizabeth had been admitted to hospital.

The BBC said the error was a result of a training exercise, contradicting the reporter’s own tweet, which said a prankster had got hold of her phone. The Guardian understands the BBC is undertaking an investigation as part of its disciplinary procedures.

Buckingham Palace denied any suggestion the monarch is unwell after erroneous breaking news reports said she had been admitted to King Edward VII’s hospital, a private facility in Marylebone, London.

The BBC said it was carrying out a “category-one obituary rehearsal” when the reporter mistakenly sent the tweet. But in an apparent coincidence that may have compounded the confusion, the Queen was also attending hospital for her annual medical checkup.

The news that she was in hospital originally came from the Twitter account of a BBC Urdu reporter Ahmen Khawaja.

According to screenshots on NBC News, Khawaja initially tweeted that the Queen had died, then retracted, saying the Queen was being treated in hospital.

Khawaja later deleted the original tweet and called it a false alarm. A few minutes afterwards, she tweeted that she had left her phone unattended and said the tweet had been a “silly prank”. This later tweet has also been deleted and Khawaja’s Twitter account appears to have been closed.

The BBC press office’s statement directly contradicted Khawaja’s explanation of a prank, saying the accidental tweet had been linked to the training exercise.

“During a technical rehearsal for an obituary, tweets were mistakenly sent from the account of a BBC journalist saying that a member of the royal family had been taken ill,” a spokesperson said. “The tweets were swiftly deleted and we apologise for any offence.”

The corporation’s statement concentrated on the tweet where Khawaja had announced the Queen was in hospital.

But a spokesman later said they were “not in a position to deny” Khawaja had in fact sent an earlier false tweet announcing the Queen’s death.

US news channel CNN was forced to recall a tweet it sent about the Queen being in hospital, saying it was sent in error.(Source: Business Insider)

Great Scotty - we hope you enjoy it. But which one - make sure to add the citation.

IMHO, this is a tempest in a tea pot and totally ridiculous....the picture is 83 years old and the Guardian has some thoughts about what was really going on in that picture/film.

"What these visual artefacts can never do is give us context. While movie footage or photographs are brilliant at freezing time, they are frustratingly dumb when it comes to giving a full account of themselves. In the case of the young cavorting Queen, it is not apparent what had been going on that day. But assuming this film was taken in the summer of 1933, then her Uncle Edward was months away from consummating his affair with Wallis Simpson, the one that would bring the monarchy to the brink of extinction and propel Elizabeth to the throne.

When you know this, then Edward’s tasteless attempt to get his little niece to do a Nazi salute takes on a whole new resonance. Far from being an unconvincing revelation about the political sympathies of a seven-year-old child, those 17 seconds of juddery home movie become an exhilarating reminder that history does sometimes turn out well. Edward’s moral torpor, his inability to consult anything but his own tawdry vanities, is sharply on display in this pastoral scene gone wrong. What we are left with – but only if we read the image in its full context – is a profound sense of relieved thanks that the little girl in the kilt was eventually given the chance to put things right." (Source: Guardian.com)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0XtC...
(Source: Youtube)

God Save the Queen: The Spiritual Dimension of Monarchy

by Ian Bradley(no photo)

Synopsis:

On the fiftieth anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II to the throne, this book both celebrates and explores the religious and spiritual dimensions of monarchy. Ian Bradley argues that it is in this area, largely neglected in current debate, that the future of monarchy lies.

I'm looking for a good book about Richard I. Any suggestions?

I'm looking for a good book about Richard I. Any suggestions?

I would suggest this book, Scotty.

by David Miller(no photo)

Are you planning to write to Prince William or meet the Queen? What is the correct etiquette.......Debrett's provides the guidelines for proper behavior for the discriminating.

Debrett's Correct Form

by E. Jane Dickson (no photo)

Synopsis:

A completely revised edition which forms a concise guide to all aspects of addressing people at the end of the twentieth century. It deals with writing letters, invitations, official and social occasions, royalty and the peerage and concentrates on current social styles and acceptable usage.

The Powers of the Monarchy

The Queen has an important formal and ceremonial relationship with Parliament.

The phrase 'Crown in Parliament' is used to describe the British legislature, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

Of these three different elements, the Commons, a majority of whom normally supports the elected Government of the day, has the dominant political power.

The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ her ministers via regular audiences with the Prime Minister.
The Sovereign’s assent is required to all bills passed by Parliament in order for them to become law. Royal Assent (consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707.

It is also a long established convention that The Queen is asked by Parliament to provide consent (which is different to assent) for the debating of bills which would affect the prerogative or interests of the Crown. Where Queen’s Consent is given it is signified in each House of Parliament and recorded in Hansard. Consent has not been withheld in modern times, except on the advice of Government.

In the annual State Opening of Parliament ceremony, The Queen opens Parliament in person, and addresses both Houses in The Queen's Speech. Neither House can proceed to public business until The Queen's Speech has been read.

This speech is drafted by the Government and not by The Queen. It outlines the Government's policy for the coming session of Parliament and indicates forthcoming legislation.

Under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (2011), each Parliament consists of five twelve-month sessions. While each session is opened by The Queen in person at the State Opening, the session is closed (prorogued) in The Queen's name with a speech read in the House of Lords, and in the presence of the Commons, by the Leader of the Lords.

When Parliament is summoned after a Royal proclamation there must, according to the Representation of the People Act 1918, be a period of at least twenty days before Parliament meets. This period can be extended, but only for fourteen days, according to the Prorogation Act 1867.

There is only one occasion on which Parliament meets without a Royal summons, and that is when the Sovereign has died. In such circumstances, the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 provides that, if Parliament is not already sitting, it must immediately meet and sit.

The Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 provides that, if the Sovereign dies after Parliament has been dissolved, the immediately preceding Parliament sits for up to six months, if not prorogued or dissolved before then.

The Queen's role in Parliament is:

Assenting to Bills passed by Parliament, on the advice of Ministers;
Giving audiences to Ministers, at which Her Majesty may be consulted, encourage and warn;

Summoning new Parliaments and, on the advice of her Government, appointing the date of its first meeting;

Opening and closing (proroguing) each session of Parliament.

(Source: Royal gov.uk)

In Australia we inherited an transmogrified version of this, with an appointed Governor-General standing in for the Queen (as Queen of Australia, not Queen of Britain - two different jobs). This is melded with a U.S.-style federal system. On top of that, our written constitution pretends that the "Gov. Gen. in Council" is the government, whereas in fact ours is formed like Britain's. Pity me explaining all this to foreign students!

Mike wrote: "In Australia we inherited an transmogrified version of this, with an appointed Governor-General standing in for the Queen (as Queen of Australia, not Queen of Britain - two different jobs). This is..."

Thanks for that interesting post, Mike. The whole thing is rather confusing, isn't it? :0)

Game of Crowns: Elizabeth, Camilla, Kate, and the Throne

by Christopher Andersen

Synopsis:

A moving and compulsively readable look into the lives, loves, relationships, and rivalries among the three women at the heart of the British royal family today: Queen Elizabeth II, Camilla Parker-Bowles, and Kate Middleton—from the #1 New York Times bestselling author of The Good Son, These Few Precious Days, and The Day Diana Died.

One has been famous longer than anyone on the planet—a dutiful daughter, a frustrated mother, a doting grandmother, a steel-willed taskmaster, a wily stateswoman, an enduring symbol of an institution that has lasted a thousand years, and a global icon who has not only been an eyewitness to history but a part of it.

One is the great-granddaughter of a King’s mistress and one of the most famous “other women” of the modern age—a woman who somehow survived a firestorm of scorn to ultimately marry the love of her life, and in the process replace her arch rival, one of the most beloved figures of the twentieth century.

One is a beautiful commoner, the university-educated daughter of a flight attendant-turned-millionaire entrepreneur, a fashion scion the equal of her adored mother-in-law, and the first woman since King George V’s wife, Queen Mary, to lay claim to being the daughter-in-law of one future king, the wife another, and the mother of yet another.

Game of Crowns is an in-depth and exquisitely researched exploration of the lives of these three remarkable women and the striking and sometimes subtle ways in which their lives intersect and intertwine. Examining their surprising similarities and stark differences, Andersen travels beyond the royal palace walls to illustrate who these three women really are today—and how they will directly reshape the landscape of the monarchy.

Charles and Camilla: Portrait of a Love Affair

by Gyles Brandreth

Synopsis:

This is the definitive account of one of the most extraordinary stories of our time. Gyles Brandreth, who spent many hours with Prince Philip in both formal and informal interviews, presents a unique portrait of his son, Charles, Prince of Wales, and of the one "non-negotiable" love of his life, Camilla Shand, now Duchess of Cornwall. What are Charles and Camilla really like? What is their heritage? What has made them the way they are? This is both a revealing portrait of two unusual individuals and a family saga like no other, told with unrivaled authority, insight, and humor, by a bestselling writer who has met all the key characters in the drama, including Charles, Camilla, and Diana, their children, families, and friends.

I own multiple books on royalty that I haven't yet read. I thought that I would list some of them and if you've read them and can tell me if they're good or not, that would be greatly appreciated. I'd also love any recommendations that you have. I especially like books that don't have a glaring bias to them, so if there is one, let me know.

General History:
by Peter Ackroyd
by Robert Lacey

War of the Roses:
by Helen Castor
by Dan Jones
by Derek Wilson
by Dan Jones

Early Tudor Era:
by Alison Weir
by Leanda de Lisle
by Thomas Penn(no photo)

Mid Tudor Era:
by Margaret Campbell Barnes

Late Tudor Era:
by Alison Weir

I don't know if anyone has read some of this series, but Penguin has come out with their Monarchs Series on British monarchs. Each book appears to be average size with great packaging. I own the Richard II book but haven't read it yet. The inside of the book recommends that you start with Athelstan. I'll leave the links below. By no means do you have to read in order. If there's a specific monarch you are interested in, I'm sure you can start wherever.

by Laura Ashe(no photo)
by Tom Holland

Julie wrote: "I own multiple books on royalty that I haven't yet read. I thought that I would list some of them and if you've read them and can tell me if they're good or not, that would be greatly appreciated. ..."

I have read a few of the book you mentioned, some quite a while ago, but if I remember, I would suggest the following from your list..

by Peter Ackroyd
by Dan Jones
by Alison Weir

Julie wrote: "I own multiple books on royalty that I haven't yet read. I thought that I would list some of them and if you've read them and can tell me if they're good or not, that would be greatly appreciated. ..."

I'm not familiar with most of your selections, but I do know (and love) Brief, Gaudy Hour, by Margaret Campbell Barnes. Most of your other selections are nonfiction, so I'm not sure how interested you are in historical fiction. But if you are, Barnes wrote several other novels; two others set specifically in the reign of Henry VIII are My Lady of Cleves (about Anne of Cleves, and a particular favorite of mine) and the King's Fool (about Will Somers). She also wrote a novel about Elizabeth of York, queen to Henry VII and Henry VIII's mother, The Tudor Rose. (She also has novels set with the Plantagenets and Stuarts, but I'm not going to list her entire oeuvre!)

, by Margaret Campbell Barnes
by Margaret Campbell Barnes
by Margaret Campbell Barnes
by Margaret Campbell Barnes

Jill, thanks for your recommendations! Doris, I am very interested in historical fiction. Your suggestions look great, and I have an especially soft spot for Elizabeth of York. I'm putting these on my Christmas list!