Scan barcode
colorfulleo92's review against another edition
2.0
It was intriguing and interesting for the wrong reason. I wanted a well written non fiction about they queen and other royals but felt it was a lot more of a gossiping kind of book. If that's what some wants that is fine. But I wanted something that felt more serious and less like hearing opinions from the author
booksrockcal's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
I love books about the royal family. This latest one was as much about the author and his history with the royal family as it was about the Queen and the future of the royal family. Still I enjoyed it.
pedantic_reader's review against another edition
informative
reflective
fast-paced
3.5
This book seems to be about everyone but Queen Elizabeth. While very informative and interesting I feel like it doesn’t quite live up to its proposed premise. I would say it’s more about how the monarchy has carefully controlled its projection of itself; less about and concerted efforts on the Queen’s part to ensure the survival of the Windsors. Besides, it seems like everyone around them was perfectly willing to do so without the Queen’s directive.
tollula's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
2.0
Great insight to the Queen's world from the point of view of a newspaper man that covered her reign. He used his inside knowledge of the press to create an image of her majesty's world. I was enjoying it until the book became very misogynistic.
I disliked how he wrote about Margaret Thatcher and the Queen. He would describe their work ethic and beliefs but in a "less than" the men in power. He kept describing Thatcher as a shrewd politician with cold beliefs like those of Churchill but somehow hers made her unfeeling while Churchill made him a great leader. He was also biased when it came to Anthony Armstrong-Jones. He clearly was his friend and worked with him at the newspaper so when it came to discussing his and Princess Margaret's marriage, he went into great detail about her indiscretions but failed to mention any of his.
Diana's affairs are very detailed while Camila's affair with Charles was casually mentioned and accepted as fact. Described Charles as being "monogamous" with Camila. Yea, cheating on your wife with your long term gf does not make you monogamous. 😡 He is set to paint Diana as a whore, a siren that tricks people to like her. He kept trying to give examples of how she manipulated people to not know her really. The saint walking mine fields or this "whore" on a yacht with millionaire boyfriend. FU! She can be both. She was trying to find love and do good in the world at the same time you misogynist!
His description of Charles and comparing of him to his great uncle the Duke of Windsor was so off base. Making Charles seem like he was a cool badass like his uncle that was just a misunderstood Royal who spoke out politically, foppish dresser who followed his heart is so wrong! By all accounts Charles is a dullard that the Duke would have nothing to do with as an individual. You can tell Charles was dressed by his nannies (or some other servant. Certainly not a trendsetter). He was lame like his grandfather George VI. I would argue that Prince Andrew is more like the Duke of Windsor in that he expected his titles to protect him no matter his actions. Be it working with the Nazis or being a pedophile.
Tony's (Lord Snowdon) opinions pop up so much in the different chapters that have nothing to do with him that this should have been titled "The Last Lord Snowdon: my bbf".
I do like how he represents Charles as "He is that most dangerous of meddlers who combines ignorance and opinion as a guide to his actions." God help the UK.
I disliked how he wrote about Margaret Thatcher and the Queen. He would describe their work ethic and beliefs but in a "less than" the men in power. He kept describing Thatcher as a shrewd politician with cold beliefs like those of Churchill but somehow hers made her unfeeling while Churchill made him a great leader. He was also biased when it came to Anthony Armstrong-Jones. He clearly was his friend and worked with him at the newspaper so when it came to discussing his and Princess Margaret's marriage, he went into great detail about her indiscretions but failed to mention any of his.
Diana's affairs are very detailed while Camila's affair with Charles was casually mentioned and accepted as fact. Described Charles as being "monogamous" with Camila. Yea, cheating on your wife with your long term gf does not make you monogamous. 😡 He is set to paint Diana as a whore, a siren that tricks people to like her. He kept trying to give examples of how she manipulated people to not know her really. The saint walking mine fields or this "whore" on a yacht with millionaire boyfriend. FU! She can be both. She was trying to find love and do good in the world at the same time you misogynist!
His description of Charles and comparing of him to his great uncle the Duke of Windsor was so off base. Making Charles seem like he was a cool badass like his uncle that was just a misunderstood Royal who spoke out politically, foppish dresser who followed his heart is so wrong! By all accounts Charles is a dullard that the Duke would have nothing to do with as an individual. You can tell Charles was dressed by his nannies (or some other servant. Certainly not a trendsetter). He was lame like his grandfather George VI. I would argue that Prince Andrew is more like the Duke of Windsor in that he expected his titles to protect him no matter his actions. Be it working with the Nazis or being a pedophile.
Tony's (Lord Snowdon) opinions pop up so much in the different chapters that have nothing to do with him that this should have been titled "The Last Lord Snowdon: my bbf".
I do like how he represents Charles as "He is that most dangerous of meddlers who combines ignorance and opinion as a guide to his actions." God help the UK.