Posted by Matthew
on 9/11/2009, 19:43:35, in reply to "Re: NY Times reviews Queen Mother biography"
209.90.32.240
I'm up to the early Mid '30s just before the abdication portion of the story and I too, share Gary's perspective. Royal "watchers" who have an existing base of knowledge will find this book fills in quite a few gaps, but on it's own, this is VERY dry - at least so far for me.
--Previous Message--
: I'm on page 530 and I regret to say that I
: agree with this review. It is a must-read
: for those of us with a strong interest in
: the British monarchy, workmanlike and
: informative, but it is none of the literary
: merit of, say, James Pope_Hennessy's
: biography of Queen Mary. I would not
: recommend it to someone with a general
: interest in history or biography, rather
: than a specific interest in royalty, as it
: reads a bit too much like the Court
: Circular. I was really expecting more flare
: because I loved the author's book about the
: fall of the Shah, but this is a book with a
: lot of great information but not a lot of
: style.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/books/review/Queenan-t.html?_r=1&ref=world
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread