Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kohava's review
3.0
This was a very interesting read, and I wish I could have given it five stars. I had no idea just how far down the rabbit hole Wallis and David went. It also gave me a healthy new respect for Queen Victoria's reproductive and matchmaking prowess. Holy crap. Despite enjoying the book very much, there were a few things that really got my goat.
It lost its first star because, despite having a background in psychology, the author spends exactly 0 time talking about how the princes grew up. Prince John is mentioned only once or twice, always out of hand, despite the impact his short life must have made on his siblings. And she hardly ever discusses Mary, the Princess Royal! I know it's a book about the brothers, but there was a sixth sibling! Bertie's courtship of the Queen Mum is never referenced, even though the author rightly gives Elizabeth credit for much of his success and stability. There's a reason Hitler called her the most dangerous woman in Europe!
Cadbury also trots out the old and damaging canard that the Allied leadership was shocked to discover the vast network of labor and extermination camps. They knew. Of course, they knew. Can we please stop perpetuating the damning untruth that everyone was surprised? Thanks. Cadbury also implies by omission that David and Wallis were the only anti-semites in the BRF. George VI and Halifax deliberately blocked the immigration of German Jews before the war. Just one example. Like Churchill, George VI was no saint, but a deeply flawed man who still managed to help lead the allies to victory.
It lost its first star because, despite having a background in psychology, the author spends exactly 0 time talking about how the princes grew up. Prince John is mentioned only once or twice, always out of hand, despite the impact his short life must have made on his siblings. And she hardly ever discusses Mary, the Princess Royal! I know it's a book about the brothers, but there was a sixth sibling! Bertie's courtship of the Queen Mum is never referenced, even though the author rightly gives Elizabeth credit for much of his success and stability. There's a reason Hitler called her the most dangerous woman in Europe!
Cadbury also trots out the old and damaging canard that the Allied leadership was shocked to discover the vast network of labor and extermination camps. They knew. Of course, they knew. Can we please stop perpetuating the damning untruth that everyone was surprised? Thanks. Cadbury also implies by omission that David and Wallis were the only anti-semites in the BRF. George VI and Halifax deliberately blocked the immigration of German Jews before the war. Just one example. Like Churchill, George VI was no saint, but a deeply flawed man who still managed to help lead the allies to victory.
annikahipple's review against another edition
3.0
Deborah Cadbury has an interesting story to tell, and she has clearly done extensive research, poring through archives and the personal diaries of King George VI and other key figures. Her portrayal of George VI, the reluctant king who came to the throne after the abdication of his brother, Edward VIII, is compelling and highlights how the king's strong sense of duty, integrity, dignity, and responsibility for the people of his empire enabled him to rise to the occasion and become the royal leader Britain needed during the World War II years. In contrast, Edward VIII, styled the Duke of Windsor after his abdication, comes across as weak, petty, self-absorbed, obsessed with perceived slights to himself and his wife (who seems to have cared more for money and status than for the duke), and completely unable to take responsibility for his own actions. Not to mention dangerously eager to appease Nazi Germany and utilize his connections there to his own benefit. If there is one message that comes through loud and clear, it's that the abdication, despite the crisis it unleashed, was a blessing in disguise for Britain and therefore for the world. That said, Cadbury's portrayal of both brothers could have used a bit more nuance.
Cadbury also paints a vivid picture of the close working relationship that developed between King George VI and his war-time prime minister, Winston Churchill—another case of the right man for the right job at the right time. Without Churchill, it's doubtful whether Britain would have succeeded in withstanding the might of Nazi Germany, and if Britain had fallen, Europe would have been lost. I found the story of the deep friendship and partnership between king and prime minister fascinating and even touching. Also interesting were the stories of the king's two younger brothers, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and Prince George, Duke of Kent, and how they, too, rose to the occasion as the war thrust new responsibilities on them. I would have liked to know more about them.
I wish Cadbury had spent some time at the beginning of the book discussing the childhood of the brothers, since it seems clear that their upbringing had a huge impact on each of their characters. George V is known to have been a stern disciplinarian whose uncompromising and emotionally distant approach to parenting scarred his sons for life and shaped their widely divergent approaches to public service. Cadbury also ignores completely the fact that the princes also had a sister, Princess Mary, and makes only brief mention of the existence of a fifth brother, Prince John, whose struggles with epilepsy, separation from the family (he was isolated in his own household, safely out of public sight), and early death at 13 must have left their mark on his siblings.
These issues notwithstanding, the biggest flaw with "Princes at War" is that Cadbury is simply not a great writer. Her book is riddled with awkward and gramatically incorrect sentences, as well as mistakes in spelling or word choice. For example, at one point she refers to someone as the "sole of discretion" (instead of "soul") and later in the book she calls a candidate for governor of Madras "imminently suitable" (instead of "eminently"). In the section on the Duke of Kent's death, she states that his plane took off at 1.10 p.m., but on the next page, it's 13.10 p.m. Why the change to military time—the whole point of which, incidentally, is that is does not require "a.m." or "p.m."? Minor irritants, perhaps, but the consistency with which such problems crop up makes them very annoying.
Cadbury also displays some irritating habits when it comes to personal names. When discussing the Windsors' adventures in Portugal, she refers to their host, Ricardo Espirito Santo Silva, as "Santo" or sometimes "Santo Silva" rather than correctly using his primary two-word surname, Espirito Santo (which means Holy Spirit and therefore should not be split). She also calls him by the Italian "Signor" rather than the Portuguese "Senhor." These might reflect a simple (but sloppy) lack of awareness of Portuguese naming conventions, were it not for the fact that Cadbury is quoting directly from a British intelligence report (reproduced on the very next page of her book) that clearly and correctly refers to "Senhor Espirito Santo." She also insists on referring to King Haakon of Norway as "Uncle Charles" without explaining why he was known this way in the family (it was presumably because his baptismal name as Prince of Denmark was Carl; Haakon was the name he chose when elected to the throne of Norway), and somewhat jarringly reverts to calling King George VI "Bertie" at random points late in the book, despite having previously switched to referring to him as "the king" or "King George VI" after his accession.
This may all seem like nitpicking, but they are all examples of issues (of which there are many more) whose cumulative effect is to undermine the interesting story Cadbury has to tell. At the very least, she needs to get a new editor.
Cadbury also paints a vivid picture of the close working relationship that developed between King George VI and his war-time prime minister, Winston Churchill—another case of the right man for the right job at the right time. Without Churchill, it's doubtful whether Britain would have succeeded in withstanding the might of Nazi Germany, and if Britain had fallen, Europe would have been lost. I found the story of the deep friendship and partnership between king and prime minister fascinating and even touching. Also interesting were the stories of the king's two younger brothers, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and Prince George, Duke of Kent, and how they, too, rose to the occasion as the war thrust new responsibilities on them. I would have liked to know more about them.
I wish Cadbury had spent some time at the beginning of the book discussing the childhood of the brothers, since it seems clear that their upbringing had a huge impact on each of their characters. George V is known to have been a stern disciplinarian whose uncompromising and emotionally distant approach to parenting scarred his sons for life and shaped their widely divergent approaches to public service. Cadbury also ignores completely the fact that the princes also had a sister, Princess Mary, and makes only brief mention of the existence of a fifth brother, Prince John, whose struggles with epilepsy, separation from the family (he was isolated in his own household, safely out of public sight), and early death at 13 must have left their mark on his siblings.
These issues notwithstanding, the biggest flaw with "Princes at War" is that Cadbury is simply not a great writer. Her book is riddled with awkward and gramatically incorrect sentences, as well as mistakes in spelling or word choice. For example, at one point she refers to someone as the "sole of discretion" (instead of "soul") and later in the book she calls a candidate for governor of Madras "imminently suitable" (instead of "eminently"). In the section on the Duke of Kent's death, she states that his plane took off at 1.10 p.m., but on the next page, it's 13.10 p.m. Why the change to military time—the whole point of which, incidentally, is that is does not require "a.m." or "p.m."? Minor irritants, perhaps, but the consistency with which such problems crop up makes them very annoying.
Cadbury also displays some irritating habits when it comes to personal names. When discussing the Windsors' adventures in Portugal, she refers to their host, Ricardo Espirito Santo Silva, as "Santo" or sometimes "Santo Silva" rather than correctly using his primary two-word surname, Espirito Santo (which means Holy Spirit and therefore should not be split). She also calls him by the Italian "Signor" rather than the Portuguese "Senhor." These might reflect a simple (but sloppy) lack of awareness of Portuguese naming conventions, were it not for the fact that Cadbury is quoting directly from a British intelligence report (reproduced on the very next page of her book) that clearly and correctly refers to "Senhor Espirito Santo." She also insists on referring to King Haakon of Norway as "Uncle Charles" without explaining why he was known this way in the family (it was presumably because his baptismal name as Prince of Denmark was Carl; Haakon was the name he chose when elected to the throne of Norway), and somewhat jarringly reverts to calling King George VI "Bertie" at random points late in the book, despite having previously switched to referring to him as "the king" or "King George VI" after his accession.
This may all seem like nitpicking, but they are all examples of issues (of which there are many more) whose cumulative effect is to undermine the interesting story Cadbury has to tell. At the very least, she needs to get a new editor.
anhistorianabouttown's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
4.5
Very interesting- covered a lot in relatively few pages!
kim_chelf's review against another edition
4.0
A very interesting look at the Royal Family during World War II
hanrochi's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
The moral of the story:
Character Matters!
Character Matters!
mogar_pogar's review against another edition
emotional
informative
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
3.25
joabroda's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.0
A history of the British Royal Family from the abdication of Edward VIII through the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Also extensive material on the 4 royal brothers. The narrative is heavy on Edward's and Wallis' links to Nazi Germany before and during WWII. I picked up pieces of history I did not know about, yet there were some things I was in doubt about. Cadbury's credentials, regarding history and research are not apparent from any bio of hers that I have read. There are citing's and a bibliography at the back of the book, but no notes from the author explaining where her facts came from.
It was a decent read, however I would only recommend to those who are interested in the British Monarchy and that period in history.
It was a decent read, however I would only recommend to those who are interested in the British Monarchy and that period in history.