Customer Reviews

On Royalty: A Very Polite Inquiry into Some Strangely Related Families

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I read books for one of two reasons -- to educate myself and for entertainment. Every now and then I get lucky, and a book will provide both of my needs at the same time. And I confess to a certain liking for reading about royalty, usually because if the book is set in the past, the life of a royal person is usually going to be the most informative -- and have the most documentation -- of the period that I'm reading about.

BBC journalist Jeremy Paxman takes a very interesting look at European royalty and the interesting question of why do some fail, and others have managed to endure for centuries? Most of his story is, naturally, centered around the British monarchy, which has, more or less, survived for nearly a thousand years, except for one very brief break during the seventeenth century. I figured I was going to get not much more than a scandal sheet along with a few historical bits and pieces in On Royalty: A Polite Inquiry into Some Strangely Related Families. Was I in for a surprise!

Paxman dishes up plenty of salacious little tales, but most of all he explores just what monarchs do -- and what they don't. Or rather, shouldn't be doing if they want to continue to occupy a throne.

After a brief preface and introduction, Paxman takes a very logical and orderly fashion to his study of that rare species of human, that known as royalty. He starts with the most obvious of tasks, that of finding a throne to occupy, and establishing an heir or two to help secure things. And after all, there is an art to being and acting royal without looking like a fool -- or worse, an imposter. If you don't already have a heir, the best way to get one is to marry someone suitable, preferably just as royal as yourself, and produce an heir and with luck, a spare.

After these basics, the more subtle aspects of royalty are examined. One of the most interesting chapters went into the idea that a monarch is indeed God's annointed, able to cure the sick, despense justice to those who can't get it, and overseeing charity. And often these abilities were recognized by the panoply of a coronation -- out of all of the western monarchies, the only one that seems to have hung onto this practice is the British one. But divine favour it seems, can vanish just as quickly, and Paxman uses the story of England's Charles I, whose death shocked Europe at the time, and produced England's only time without a king -- which only lasted for about twelve years, and when Charles I's son, another Charles, came to the throne, there was a great deal of rejoicing for everyone concerned.

But as time passed, the powers of monarchs were steadily trimmed -- the last of the autocratic rulers were swept away in the revolutions after World War I, and most monarchies these days are constitutional ones, where the ruler, whether King or Queen, is a figurehead. It's here, in the final section of the book, that Paxman shows why certain monarchs have survived, and others haven't. Most of his concentration is on Britain's Queen Elizabeth II and her family, showing how they've provided stability in a world that has ever changing politicians -- there may be a change in prime ministers, but the Queen remains, and has remained so for more than fifty years now. There's also some talk about how her parents, George VI and the late Queen Mother, gave Britain the emotional and symbolic support that was needed in the face of the Blitz and World War II, the turmoil of Edward VIII's very brief reign and that Simpson woman, and finally the modern crises that her family has weathered.

Not everyone will be pleased at the way that Paxman shows the late Princess Diana, and the Duchess of York, two upper-class commoners that married the Queen's elder sons. Diana, especially, is shown in her far from regal moments, including a vicious verbal swipe at her husband that was the closest that I've seen to public castration, and the infamous 'toe-sucking' incident that heralded Fergie's fall from royal favour. And there is a bit of a replay of the mass hysteria that followed Diana's sudden death as well.

The author does raise some interesting questions as to whether or not there is a future for royalty in the new century. But he's also wise enough to let the reader answer that question for themselves as well.

And it's pretty certain to be the summer of royalty both on television and in the bookstores -- after all, 2007 marks ten years since Princess Diana was killed in a Paris car crash. There's certain to be plenty of memorials about her, and yet another rehash of the conspiracy theories.

But for a balanced look, this book isn't too bad at all. Paxman manages to keep a sense of humour about the topic, slides in a few great jokes, and comes up with some truly remarkable stories -- both good and bad -- about our continued fascination and questions about the monarchs among us.

Recommended.

There is currently a reigning Queen in Denmark and another in Holland that I can recall, but who - for anyone the world over - is The Queen? We all know, and her name is the title of a box-office-storming film. The theme this time is not just `The Queen' but `Royalty'. The book duly contains a certain amount about royalty in Italy, Albania, Greece, Russia and old-testament Israel, but the author knows where his readers' interest will be focused, and these royal outriders are allowed to feature only insofar as they add colour to the majestic cavalcade of Elizabeth II and the ribald retinue of her own Royal Family, a group title whose reference is again impossible to mistake.

This book is no kind of tract. It is the work of an independent-minded and slightly cantankerous journalist possessed of a strong sense of the ridiculous, a certain sense of history and a grudging fairmindedness. Most of us, if required these days to devise a system of government, would not come up with monarchy as our proposal, and Paxman, I suspect, would be even less inclined than the next man to do so. Nevertheless he has to admit to himself what seems equally obvious to me, namely that republican sentiment in Britain, however logically the case may be argued, has never taken much more hold than the campaign, perhaps equally logical, for phonetic spelling.

In for a penny, in for a gold sovereign, Paxman does his best to explain why the British monarchy is almost universally tolerated and in many quarters held in high affection and regard, although one suspects in higher affection nowadays than regard. He rightly characterizes Bagehot's reasoning as condescending, but he is honest enough to concede (if I read him rightly) that it is somewhere near the truth too. As a sociologist he is an amateur, just as he is not a professional historian, and I'm inclined as an amateur myself in both fields to say that his reasoning is probably all the better for its independence of hierarchies, establishments and thought-police in both disciplines. Paxman is a rationalist prepared to admit that the forces of irrationality are, at least for now, getting the better of the argument. So far does he lean over backwards to be fair that he actually ducks the issue (which I would have loved to have seen him handle) of what sort of vicarious existence is enjoyed or endured by the type of person self-styled `an ardent royalist'.

The style will be familiar to anyone who knows Paxman from his earlier books and from the BBC's Newsnight. As a writer he seems to me to achieve better focus this time than previously. Either Muggeridge or Clive James could show him how to time his punch-lines better, and perhaps he has been reluctant to compromise his impartiality by copying such egocentrists, but he seems to be learning the trick gradually from somewhere. The book is not particularly `structured', and in my opinion it is none the worse for that. The topic of British royalty does not, after all, lend itself readily to any Kantian flow of logic, and I rather sense that Paxman's way of changing the spotlight is likely to be more illuminating in the long run than most attempts to treat the subject systematically. If there is a chapter you can safely skip, it is probably the chapter on the execution of Charles I, which is much better handled in, say, Geoffrey Robertson's `The Tyrannicide Brief'.

Her Britannic Majesty Elizabeth II is now well into her 80's, although likely destined for a good many more years in the job. It is very probable that much of the public attitude to the monarchy has really narrowed itself down to a public view of this dutiful if dull monarch personally. Typically, her broadcasts to the nation are distinguished by such insights as `many events have happened to all of us'. It may all become more eventful after her, but I wonder how many, even self-proclaimed republicans, will really welcome that when it happens.

Jeremy Paxman excels in turning out books which, while they might challenge and annoy you, always entertain. Here he turns his spotlight on Royalty, primarily on the House of Windsor with a few excursions to Denmark, Albania, and some other monarchical or formerly monarchical areas. Paxman is absolutely not a royalist. He finds the Windsors fusty, dull, uncouth, and implausible. He cannot see a reason why a modern government or society should have room for inherited power or position. Yet he acknowledges that, at least under Queen Elizabeth II, the system works fairly well most of the time for Britain.

I am an American of primarily British ancestry, and even though many of my forebears came to the New World to get away from the Windsors' forebears, I nevertheless feel a strong sympathy for and admiration for the British Royal Family. Paxman sometimes sets my teeth on edge when he's being particularly condescending to them, but nevertheless I chuckled and snickered much of my way through it. Occasionally he makes an error, particularly in his rush to condemn King George V for being afraid to allow his cousin Tsar Nicholas II into England after the 1917 Revolution. Others have also found fault with the King for this, which did eventually lead to the Tsar and his family's murder, but they forget or choose not to remember that when the King said no he was leaving his cousin in the hands of a democratic Russian government, not the Bolsheviks who didn't take power until months later, when it was too late to help the Tsar. There was no way George V could have known what was coming.

Despite errors like this I really enjoyed On Royalty. Paxman has a flair for fine writing, and he can turn a phrase with the best of them. By the end he admits that despite the illogic of monarchy, the system works and continues to hold great appeal. I suppose my favorite section dealt with the Stauntons, a family of gentry who have held the same land for centuries and who have always been firm monarchists. Like them, even though the Royal Family disappoints me from time to time, I stand ready to "defend the castle" if the call ever comes.

A breazy mix of scholarship and commentary on present and past monarchies. Very enjoyable read, well worth it. But for those of us who might not be on a "first name" basis with Edward VII or George IV it might have been nice to include a family tree so that when the name does pop up (and the names do pop up often) a quick glance would satisfy the "what year was he again?" question. And maybe a bit of explanation on the changing of names when becoming king would have helped as well. But these are minor quibbles. And of interesting note - the book is one of the most "comfortable" books I've read in a long time - the print, the paper, the overall quality of the actual book is outstanding.

UK journalist Jeremy Paxman never liked the monarchy. How could thinking people in a democracy put up with such an archaic institution? But when Paxman bumps into the Queen at a reception, he is shocked to find that he is a quivering wreck in her presence. How can someone the size and age of his grandmother evoke such nerves and such awe? This is the question that his book sets out to answer.

This book gives insight on how the Church of England and the government of the U.K. affect the royal family,and how the royals affect general society.
There are a few behind the scenes,or below the stairs type tidbits.
Overall it was a fine history lesson.

ON ROYALTY was a fun read and a pleasant surprise. Jeremy Paxman takes us on a delightful and sometimes irreverant journey into the world's royalty. Seeing the picture of Queen Elizabeth II of England led me to expect the book to primarily deal with the British Monarchy and the Windsor clan. Although the British Royal Family is prominently featured in the book, Paxman gives us insight into other royal families. His book is an often tongue-in-cheek look at that mystical institution where certain select people achieve a status above mere mortals. Although the British Monarchy is one of the world's oldest royal institutions, it is not without its share of controversy and question over lineage. More than once, a king or his heir was deemed not suitable for the throne (being Catholic was one reason) and a new King was chosen from relatives in Europe even though there were candidates in England who were much higher in the line of succession. Direct lineage did not assure one's right to be the next King of England. Find out how Thailand got its monarchy. Why is he the KING OF THE BELGIANS and not the KING OF BELGIUM? Paxman gives us so many obscure yet fascinating facts.
The brief monarchy of the Kings of Albania provides some insight into how a nobody can become a king. The Albanian royalty was created from scratch in the 20th Century as were the monarchies in other countries. New countries came into existence after WWI. As in the 19th century, sometimes a country either ran out of kings or decided a monarchy was the best way to go. When Sweden needed a new king, one of Napoleon's soldiers took the job. Norway needed a king so they looked to the Danish royal family for a candidate. Some lesser princes suddenly found themselves king of another country they had never visited. Being in the right place at the right time and you too can be king. You just never know when you might be chosen to be king. ON ROYALTY is a delight for royalty fans and history lovers. Royal institutions are fading. Kings are becoming less relevant in the modern world but more than a handful of countries still have a king or a queen. So sit down and dust off your royal crown and a wodnerful book and its look at royalty.

Jeremy Paxman endeavours to produce a balanced look at today's British Royal Family. Why they behave as they do, the influences, events that have brought about the current family. He has confined his main comparisons to the Queen and Prince Charles with Prince Phillip in a minor role. It is a very readible and well researched book with many facts being presented in a style that keeps the book moving and does not allow it to get "bogged down". He has trod a very careful path through the Princess Diana era and on going influence. A book that aims to demonstrate how the Monarchy in England has evolved over the centuries.

The UK bestseller ON ROYALTY; A VERY POLITE INQUIRY INTO SOME STRANGELY RELATED FAMILIES provides a lively survey of the royal families, examining the history, strange lineage, and unusual associations of kings and queens. Paxman has had tea with Diana at Buckingham Palace, and other encounters with royalty across Europe: here are not only exposes of royal behind-the-scenes relationships, but cultural and political explorations of different royal lines around the world. A wonderfully lively expose evolves perfect for both history collections and for general-interest readers of biography and royalty.

I started out enjoying "On Royalty" a lot but, by a third of the way through, I realised that it is superficial, as if Paxman has learnt his history from newspaper articles & Wikipedia. His dismissal of Christian X of Denmark is pitiful & he underestimates George VI. He seems to have some understanding of the "glamour" side of royalty without recognising how much a stakeholder in, say, a new hospital prefers to have it opened by someone seen as a representative of the country at large. Princess Marina opened the chemistry laboratory where I studied & it seemed so suitable. Besides which, it was fun but that's another story... Paxman has nothing to say, in the part of the book I read, about the business of royalty. Leaving aside Prince Charles' mostly successful ventures, the job of a constitutional monarch is to be consulted by his government, to advise it, to encourage it, to warn it. In addition, being "above the battle", the monarch is the residual legatee of the political establishment. In a constitutional crisis, he or she will have a holding role. Paxton dismisses Frederick IX of Denmark (my father called him a "simple sailor") as a nonentity but it has become clear that he had a talent for steadying the coalition governments inevitable in a country with some dozen political parties. George VI was "good on paper" to the point that he was highly respected by his ministers, even Aneurin Bevan! More than that, dunce though he was in the Navy, he became a source of good ideas. For instance, he was a very early proponent to Roosevelt of what later became the Marshall Plan.

Basically, it's much easier to chop something down than to nurture & support it.