Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by mari1532
Matriarch: Queen Mary and the House of Windsor by Anne Edwards
3.0
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.