Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.99 AVERAGE
3.99 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
Princess Victoria Mary of Teck was born in London in 1867. Her father was Francis, Duke of Teck. Her mother was Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. She grew up in Kensington Palace, and was educated there by a governess. She became fluent in French, German, and English. She loved traveling, and enjoyed visiting any type of museum or art gallery. She became engaged to Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Avondale and Clarence in 1891, but he died before they could be married. She ultimately wound up marrying his brother, Prince George, Duke of York. The two of them had six children, one of which would become King George VI. Her granddaughter would become Queen Elizabeth II. She had a pretty remarkable life, dying at age 85, a few weeks before Elizabeth II would have her coronation.
This book was exceptionally well written, in my opinion. I enjoyed learning about Mary of Teck, because I had only known about her through portrayals on The Crown and Downton Abbey. I found this book in the middle of watching The Crown, and was excited to learn more about the actual person behind the character. The research that was done for this book must have been a massive undertaking. There is so much information about her, and other members of the royal family in this book. This was a really good read.
This book was exceptionally well written, in my opinion. I enjoyed learning about Mary of Teck, because I had only known about her through portrayals on The Crown and Downton Abbey. I found this book in the middle of watching The Crown, and was excited to learn more about the actual person behind the character. The research that was done for this book must have been a massive undertaking. There is so much information about her, and other members of the royal family in this book. This was a really good read.
I love royal family gossip, so this was a good fit for me. Also liked the fact that I could get in through Hoopla - for free.
This was a very rare Did-Not-Finish for me. I think it might actually be the first book in a hundred or so I gave up on.
Technically, it wasn't awful. The information presented was well-researched and brought to light some often-ignored parts of history. However, it was a little marred by the author's strangely judgemental tone. No random character can be presented without her including a sneering aside about their clothing styles, level of intelligence, or general personality.
To hear her tell it, every member of the royal family besides Queen Mary was a sniveling, ugly dimwit, and Mary wasn't all that great herself. The combination of dry facts and irrelevant, heavily opinionated bits made it hard to enjoy or even plod through the book. The author seemed about as unenthusiastic and disinterested in her subject as I felt after reading this.
Maybe I'll come back to it when I run out of actual interesting things to read, but I have my doubts.
Technically, it wasn't awful. The information presented was well-researched and brought to light some often-ignored parts of history. However, it was a little marred by the author's strangely judgemental tone. No random character can be presented without her including a sneering aside about their clothing styles, level of intelligence, or general personality.
To hear her tell it, every member of the royal family besides Queen Mary was a sniveling, ugly dimwit, and Mary wasn't all that great herself. The combination of dry facts and irrelevant, heavily opinionated bits made it hard to enjoy or even plod through the book. The author seemed about as unenthusiastic and disinterested in her subject as I felt after reading this.
Maybe I'll come back to it when I run out of actual interesting things to read, but I have my doubts.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
I would actually rate this book 2.5 out of 5. I purchased a hard copy of this book at a book sale, but I have been on more of an audiobook-related kick lately so I decided to check the audiobook out of the library.
I would not say that I am giving this book a 2.5 because it was terrible, but I didn't find it good either. It was simply a middle-of-the-road book. After listening to this book I can identify that Queen Mary:
1. grew up in a family with financial difficulties
2. was very well educated and may have had a photographic memory (although this is not something that Edwards states outright)
3. loved her husband, but revered the monarchy more
4. loved jewelry and antiques
5. was not altogether maternal
6. had very strong friendships
7. shaped the "never complain, never explain" attitude of the current monarchy
However, this book was so long that I felt that Mary often got lost in the discussion of historical events and the other members of the Windsor family. Obviously, her relationships within the family are important given her status, but to me, none of these discussions seemed to put Mary in a favourable light. I understand people to be far more complicated than it appears that Edwards viewed the subject of this book.
As an example of the lack of nuance, I felt this book had with regards to Mary, the discussion of her with a mother is one of the largest. I am sure that given the times in which she grew up Mary did not find it important to have a particularly active relationship with her children in their youth and she may not have been particularly maternally inclined. Now, it's not for the reader nor the author to make up for these shortcomings, but it just seems that Edwards is more willing to believe the worst in Mary without providing context to anything. For instance, that royal children were often raised separately from their parents. However, I found that Edwards read a great deal into what she did or did not say to her children based on witness accounts, diaries, and letters. When writing about a historical figure, these are important, but we only have to look to the fact that Queen Victoria had her diaries altered to realize that perhaps the things that are public are not a full picture of what happened and simply inferring from the absence of something that it never occurred is not entirely accurate. It is more likely that Mary kept certain things more closely guarded if she felt they might hurt the monarchy or reflect poorly on members of the family. Also, Edwards seemed intent on contrasting Mary's maternal instincts (or lack thereof) with her mother-in-law's mothering style to indicate how deficient Mary was as a parent. However, Edwards constantly said that Alexandra was overbearing to her children, but I got the sense that this was preferred to Mary's more detached style by the author.
I also am not entirely sure why Edwards wrote this book. She does not seem particularly inclined to the Monarchy, which is perfectly fine, but this book is sold as a biography of Queen Mary not an examination of her role in imperialism or other things that the monarchy could, rightly, be criticized for. However, Edwards didn't have a single nice thing to say about anybody in the Windsor family, except the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. The critiques in my opinion were not necessarily about their character and more about their appearance, their interests (she disparages every woman who doesn't see education as important by insinuating that they are stupid), or problems that they may have had (e.g., Bertie and his stutter & drinking). These could have been valid critiques but ended up feeling more like a tabloid headline than something substantive. Furthermore, a great deal of effort in my opinion was put into disparaging people's appearances. She describes Mary as having a puddle hairstyle, but this doesn't seem accurate to me from the pictures I have seen.
Regarding the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, I felt that Edwards favoured them more than anybody throughout the book. She continually brought up how David never felt loved by his parents (which could have been true) and even adds at the end of the book how Wallace might have helped David and Mary reconcile towards the end of her life by sending a letter to Mary. She also seems to provide psychological reasons for why David may have made the choices that she did, without ever really acknowledging that he did play a role in his choice to give up the throne. The psychological aspect is valid, but again Edwards doesn't spend a great deal of time examining these.
Overall, this book is an interesting snapshot of the Windsor family and I do not regret reading it, but I felt it did not have a clear thesis. Either an examination of Mary, her thoughts, life, and faults, or an examination of the monarchy. It seemed to straddle the two topics without really being effective at either. If you choose to read this book I would recommend the audiobook as the vocalist, Corrie James, did a superb job.
I would not say that I am giving this book a 2.5 because it was terrible, but I didn't find it good either. It was simply a middle-of-the-road book. After listening to this book I can identify that Queen Mary:
1. grew up in a family with financial difficulties
2. was very well educated and may have had a photographic memory (although this is not something that Edwards states outright)
3. loved her husband, but revered the monarchy more
4. loved jewelry and antiques
5. was not altogether maternal
6. had very strong friendships
7. shaped the "never complain, never explain" attitude of the current monarchy
However, this book was so long that I felt that Mary often got lost in the discussion of historical events and the other members of the Windsor family. Obviously, her relationships within the family are important given her status, but to me, none of these discussions seemed to put Mary in a favourable light. I understand people to be far more complicated than it appears that Edwards viewed the subject of this book.
As an example of the lack of nuance, I felt this book had with regards to Mary, the discussion of her with a mother is one of the largest. I am sure that given the times in which she grew up Mary did not find it important to have a particularly active relationship with her children in their youth and she may not have been particularly maternally inclined. Now, it's not for the reader nor the author to make up for these shortcomings, but it just seems that Edwards is more willing to believe the worst in Mary without providing context to anything. For instance, that royal children were often raised separately from their parents. However, I found that Edwards read a great deal into what she did or did not say to her children based on witness accounts, diaries, and letters. When writing about a historical figure, these are important, but we only have to look to the fact that Queen Victoria had her diaries altered to realize that perhaps the things that are public are not a full picture of what happened and simply inferring from the absence of something that it never occurred is not entirely accurate. It is more likely that Mary kept certain things more closely guarded if she felt they might hurt the monarchy or reflect poorly on members of the family. Also, Edwards seemed intent on contrasting Mary's maternal instincts (or lack thereof) with her mother-in-law's mothering style to indicate how deficient Mary was as a parent. However, Edwards constantly said that Alexandra was overbearing to her children, but I got the sense that this was preferred to Mary's more detached style by the author.
I also am not entirely sure why Edwards wrote this book. She does not seem particularly inclined to the Monarchy, which is perfectly fine, but this book is sold as a biography of Queen Mary not an examination of her role in imperialism or other things that the monarchy could, rightly, be criticized for. However, Edwards didn't have a single nice thing to say about anybody in the Windsor family, except the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. The critiques in my opinion were not necessarily about their character and more about their appearance, their interests (she disparages every woman who doesn't see education as important by insinuating that they are stupid), or problems that they may have had (e.g., Bertie and his stutter & drinking). These could have been valid critiques but ended up feeling more like a tabloid headline than something substantive. Furthermore, a great deal of effort in my opinion was put into disparaging people's appearances. She describes Mary as having a puddle hairstyle, but this doesn't seem accurate to me from the pictures I have seen.
Regarding the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, I felt that Edwards favoured them more than anybody throughout the book. She continually brought up how David never felt loved by his parents (which could have been true) and even adds at the end of the book how Wallace might have helped David and Mary reconcile towards the end of her life by sending a letter to Mary. She also seems to provide psychological reasons for why David may have made the choices that she did, without ever really acknowledging that he did play a role in his choice to give up the throne. The psychological aspect is valid, but again Edwards doesn't spend a great deal of time examining these.
Overall, this book is an interesting snapshot of the Windsor family and I do not regret reading it, but I felt it did not have a clear thesis. Either an examination of Mary, her thoughts, life, and faults, or an examination of the monarchy. It seemed to straddle the two topics without really being effective at either. If you choose to read this book I would recommend the audiobook as the vocalist, Corrie James, did a superb job.
informative
slow-paced
Slow moving at times but an informative and good read.
informative
slow-paced
First, to put this in a little bit of modern pop culture context. If you're an avid fan of The Crown on Netflix, which is of course about the current Queen Elizabeth II... this is the story of her grandmother, Queen Mary of Teck. And if you were a fan of the movie (or book) [b:The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy|9755737|The King's Speech How One Man Saved the British Monarchy|Mark Logue|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1327941516l/9755737._SY75_.jpg|14645023], which was about Queen Elizabeth's father King “Stuttering George” VI and how he got his voice back.... this is the story of his mother. And if you're mad for Downton Abbey, remember when the King and Queen visited the Abbey in the DA movie? Yep, that was Queen Mary of Teck and her husband King George V. Bonus trivia: She was the Queen for the entire period of Downton Abbey, so whenever “the Queen” is mentioned or shows up in a cameo, that's her. For instance, the scene in Season 4 when Cousin Rose made her debut and was formally presented at Buckingham Palace.
ETA: Right after vreading this book, I started watching Season 3 of The Crown, and in S3:E2 Prince Phillip says to Elizabeth, repeating what Tommy Lascelles had once told him to explain how the House of Windsor produces children who are total opposites, "For every Queen Victoria, there's an Edward VII; for every George V, there's a Prince Eddy, for every George VI, there's an Edward VIII... and for every Lillibet, there's a Margaret." I was so happy I had vread the book, so I understood in great detail exactly what that statement meant.
Queen Mary was the bridge between two celebrated ruling queens of England and two great eras: Her great-aunt, Queen Victoria, and her granddaughter, Queen Elizabeth II. Though never a ruling Queen herself, but only a Queen Consort, she was a grand and much-admired figure who inspired great loyalty and love in the British people for over 50 years. As Queen or Queen Mother, she was the preeminent lady of England through two world wars, the constitutional crisis created by her eldest son's scandalous abdication of the throne, and the shaking of the monarchies of Europe to their very foundations. Look at it this way: she was born two years after the end of the American Civil War, and lived to see the post-war modernization of the early 1950s. That's a lot of change in a lifetime.
The first thing I noticed about young Princess May, as she was known in her youth, is how she was raised in a world of strong women and weak men. She herself was an intelligent and intellectually curious young woman, and she was surrounded by formidable women, starting with her charismatic and commanding mother, a woman of prodigious charm and even more prodigious appetites. On the other hand, the men in her life consistently seem like inconvenient but necessary accessories, not unlike hothouse flowers, whose care must be constant and whose inevitable foibles must be ignored if possible and accommodated when necessary. So from an early age, she was exposed to the notion that women were the ones who generally got things done in life, and the less the menfolk interfered, the better. It was more than a notion for her – it was the simple reality of her life. It seems the best the women in her extended family could hope for was that their men would just basically behave and not create scandals or bankrupt the family. That's not to say the women of the family were paragons – May's own mother Princess Mary Adelaide had such a passion for living beyond her modest means (the Tecks were of royal blood but it didn't come with wealth) that the family was in constant debt, and an auspicious marriage higher up the royal line was the means by which both her parents hoped to escape penury.
May inherited her mother's charisma and regal bearing, and between herself and her husband, she was generally the one who excited more public excitement and admiration. It was said by some in the royal household that they had never seen a more queenly Queen, and that included the long-reigning and beloved Queen Victoria. And yet as Queen, she was such an ardent believer in the august power of the reigning monarch that she subscribed wholeheartedly to the idea that all, including his own wife, must defer to the King in all things. It must have been privately frustrating for her to know she was more intelligent, more capable, and more resilient than the men around her who were getting all the credit, but she never let it show. She was instead known for her utterly unflappable poise, her reserved but gracious nature, and her elegant figure.
On Prince David, aka King Edward VIII: Once you learn a little about the upbringing of the royal children, David's infamous abdication and the helpless adoration for Wallis Simpson that triggered it become easier to understand. The childhoods of the royal children, particularly the two oldest, David and Bertie, was an absolute tragedy, and it in no way prepared either David or Bertie to be king. Both were average children to begin with, were deprived of any parental affection, cut off from any experiences that might have helped build confidence, continually bullied and belittled by their father, and given at best a half-assed education that did nothing to prepare them for the responsibilities of a monarch. On top of that, poor David literally spent the first three years of his life being physically abused by his nanny until she was found out and sacked. Then, at age 12, David was shipped off to naval school, an exercise in humiliation, suffering, and misery that probably destroyed what little confidence he had up to that point. David's experience in naval school reminds me intensely of what I learned about Prince Charles's experience at Gordonstoun boarding school from watching The Crown. In both cases, the father had found it an overall positive experience that became a cherished memory through the gilded lens of time, and so shipped the son off over his objections, with gay disregard for the obvious (to the audience) fact that son was nothing like father and not remotely cut out for that sort of life. And in both cases, it was an emotionally crippling disaster for the son. Add to all this the lifelong distance and coldness of their mother, who had all the maternal feelings of a frying pan, and it's no wonder David fled into the arms of not one but two domineering women who could be the mother figure he sorely missed.
On Prince Bertie, aka King George VI: Even if you haven't seen or read The King's Speech, you're bound to develop a few warm feelings for Bertie even if you don't like him much at first. Forced by his brother's abdication to accept a throne for which he was woefully ill-suited and unprepared (not that David was much better suited for it), unlike his brother, he did not shirk his duty and soldiered on. He endeared himself to the British people as a stalwart wartime king who did not shirk from bombs, but regularly toured the rubble and was present when Buckingham Palace itself was bombed during the Blitz.
ETA: Right after vreading this book, I started watching Season 3 of The Crown, and in S3:E2 Prince Phillip says to Elizabeth, repeating what Tommy Lascelles had once told him to explain how the House of Windsor produces children who are total opposites, "For every Queen Victoria, there's an Edward VII; for every George V, there's a Prince Eddy, for every George VI, there's an Edward VIII... and for every Lillibet, there's a Margaret." I was so happy I had vread the book, so I understood in great detail exactly what that statement meant.
Queen Mary was the bridge between two celebrated ruling queens of England and two great eras: Her great-aunt, Queen Victoria, and her granddaughter, Queen Elizabeth II. Though never a ruling Queen herself, but only a Queen Consort, she was a grand and much-admired figure who inspired great loyalty and love in the British people for over 50 years. As Queen or Queen Mother, she was the preeminent lady of England through two world wars, the constitutional crisis created by her eldest son's scandalous abdication of the throne, and the shaking of the monarchies of Europe to their very foundations. Look at it this way: she was born two years after the end of the American Civil War, and lived to see the post-war modernization of the early 1950s. That's a lot of change in a lifetime.
The first thing I noticed about young Princess May, as she was known in her youth, is how she was raised in a world of strong women and weak men. She herself was an intelligent and intellectually curious young woman, and she was surrounded by formidable women, starting with her charismatic and commanding mother, a woman of prodigious charm and even more prodigious appetites. On the other hand, the men in her life consistently seem like inconvenient but necessary accessories, not unlike hothouse flowers, whose care must be constant and whose inevitable foibles must be ignored if possible and accommodated when necessary. So from an early age, she was exposed to the notion that women were the ones who generally got things done in life, and the less the menfolk interfered, the better. It was more than a notion for her – it was the simple reality of her life. It seems the best the women in her extended family could hope for was that their men would just basically behave and not create scandals or bankrupt the family. That's not to say the women of the family were paragons – May's own mother Princess Mary Adelaide had such a passion for living beyond her modest means (the Tecks were of royal blood but it didn't come with wealth) that the family was in constant debt, and an auspicious marriage higher up the royal line was the means by which both her parents hoped to escape penury.
May inherited her mother's charisma and regal bearing, and between herself and her husband, she was generally the one who excited more public excitement and admiration. It was said by some in the royal household that they had never seen a more queenly Queen, and that included the long-reigning and beloved Queen Victoria. And yet as Queen, she was such an ardent believer in the august power of the reigning monarch that she subscribed wholeheartedly to the idea that all, including his own wife, must defer to the King in all things. It must have been privately frustrating for her to know she was more intelligent, more capable, and more resilient than the men around her who were getting all the credit, but she never let it show. She was instead known for her utterly unflappable poise, her reserved but gracious nature, and her elegant figure.
On Prince David, aka King Edward VIII: Once you learn a little about the upbringing of the royal children, David's infamous abdication and the helpless adoration for Wallis Simpson that triggered it become easier to understand. The childhoods of the royal children, particularly the two oldest, David and Bertie, was an absolute tragedy, and it in no way prepared either David or Bertie to be king. Both were average children to begin with, were deprived of any parental affection, cut off from any experiences that might have helped build confidence, continually bullied and belittled by their father, and given at best a half-assed education that did nothing to prepare them for the responsibilities of a monarch. On top of that, poor David literally spent the first three years of his life being physically abused by his nanny until she was found out and sacked. Then, at age 12, David was shipped off to naval school, an exercise in humiliation, suffering, and misery that probably destroyed what little confidence he had up to that point. David's experience in naval school reminds me intensely of what I learned about Prince Charles's experience at Gordonstoun boarding school from watching The Crown. In both cases, the father had found it an overall positive experience that became a cherished memory through the gilded lens of time, and so shipped the son off over his objections, with gay disregard for the obvious (to the audience) fact that son was nothing like father and not remotely cut out for that sort of life. And in both cases, it was an emotionally crippling disaster for the son. Add to all this the lifelong distance and coldness of their mother, who had all the maternal feelings of a frying pan, and it's no wonder David fled into the arms of not one but two domineering women who could be the mother figure he sorely missed.
On Prince Bertie, aka King George VI: Even if you haven't seen or read The King's Speech, you're bound to develop a few warm feelings for Bertie even if you don't like him much at first. Forced by his brother's abdication to accept a throne for which he was woefully ill-suited and unprepared (not that David was much better suited for it), unlike his brother, he did not shirk his duty and soldiered on. He endeared himself to the British people as a stalwart wartime king who did not shirk from bombs, but regularly toured the rubble and was present when Buckingham Palace itself was bombed during the Blitz.
Picked this up because we just started watching The Crown on Netflix and I was in a royal mood. Completely fascinating as a biography, especially as Queen Mary's life had so many transitions in it, from the 19th to the 20th century, from a continent covered in royal families, to a royal family standing alone, etc. Really amazing to see how world events shaped and were shaped by her and her family. Loved the many uses of diaries and letters and other primary sources.
The audiobook narrator was good
Highly recommended.
The audiobook narrator was good
Highly recommended.