War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy [Hardcover]

Lynn Picknett (Author), Clive Prince (Author), Stephen Prior (Author), Robert Brydon (Contributor)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 18, 2002

This volume examines the truth behind Britain's modern monarchy. It looks at the full extent of the battle for power of various dynastic groups, in particular Lord Louis Mountbatten's ruthless scheming to make Britain's ruling family the House of Mountbatten; the abdication of Edward VII; the truth behind the notorious Anthony Blunt and his connection with the royal family; the cover-up of major financial scandals connected with George VI and other kings; and the routine use of euthanasia to dispatch those who inconveniently linger—for example the case of both George V and his widow, Queen Mary.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"[This expose of the House of Windsor] unearths a veritable cemetery of royal family skeletons and financial improprieties." --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

About the Author

Lynn Picknett is a writer, broadcaster, televison presenter, journalist and lecturer. Clive Prince is a writer and researcher on the subject of religious and historical mysteries. Stephen Prior is a theologian and political historian who specialises in intelligence. Picknett and Prince are also the co-authors of Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?, The Templar Revelation and Stargate Conspiracy.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Mainstream Publishing (November 18, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1840186313
• ISBN-13: 978-1840186314
• Product Dimensions: 6.3 x 1.5 x 9.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.5 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #479,740 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #60 in Books > Education & Reference > Genealogy > United Kingdom

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars So, so VERY interesting., October 15, 2003

By A Customer

This review is from: War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy (Hardcover)

Brilliantly and painstakingly researched, entertainingly and well written (there is an attempt to weigh up various arguments, rather than being biased towards one...), with very relevant and timely comment regarding this family.

My only critisisms are:
1. The choice of front cover/main title on this book (somewhat tabloid) marks it as being written by a journalist. Nevertheless, there are other authors involved here (including 2 historians - one specialising in intelligence, the other - military history), that bring a level of seriousness and meticulousness with them, beyond which is conveyed adequately by the (front) cover.
2. The lack of an index. Sources and references are thankfully provided, however as a work of research this book also needs an index.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A Case of Over-Reach, April 25, 2010

By 

Andrew Desmond (Neutral Bay, NSW Australia) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy (Hardcover)

I am of the view that the Windsors serve no real purpose. As an Australian, I look forward to the day when this dysfunctional family retreat to England and Australia follows its destiny as a republic.

Yet, despite my republican views, I found some of the arguments within "War of the Windsors" simply absurd. The book promises to be a warts and all history of the Windsors in the 20th century. In some respects, it does succeed in this task. The Windsors have much to answer for. However, some of the claims in the book border on the absurd. We are led to believe that Soviet spy, Anthony Blunt, was an illegitimate child of the family. Of course, we are encouraged to believe that the death of Princess Diana was planned by British security services. Needless to say, the evidence is thin on the ground. Hearsay comes to reflect truth.

In spite of some of the more far fetched theories that the book promotes, it does have its strengths. It is a good history in part. The royal family certainly has skeletons in its closet. The Duke of Windsor was certainly a Nazi sympathiser. George VI, his younger brother, was a war appeaser. Prince Charles is, to steal a quote from Christopher Hitchens and not the book, "a chinless, slobbering dauphin". Indeed, his ascension to the throne will be fascinating to watch. Here we will see incompetence come face to face with irrelevance.

So, on a scale of five, I give this book three stars. It tries hard but is guilty of over-reach. This is a shame. A light needs to be shined on the dark recesses of the British aristocracy. It's a pity that his book over-states its case.

1.0 out of 5 stars Hugely disappointing, February 13, 2012

By 

A. Lee - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy (Hardcover)

This book was really disappointing. Some of it - the tax information, for example - is fascinating and initially rather appalling, but the huge holes in other parts of the book lead to profound scepticism. It just isn't possible to trust what they say, because even with my limited knowledge I can see massive mistakes, which are then built on to form impossible theses.

Example: it's claimed that the Royal Family were lying when they claimed letters between Queen Victoria and her daughter, the Prussian Empress, were recovered from Friedrichshof castle, the ancestral home of the Hessian royals, after WW2. The writers call it a completely implausible excuse for a secret visit, and state that it only makes sense as a coverup for far more incriminating, treasonable letters being retrieved, because in reality the officially-claimed letters would be held by the Kaiser, or another member of the Prussian royal family, not the Hessian. Problem is, Friedrichshof was built by the Prussian Empress when widowed - it's called after her husband, Friedrich - and as well as being her home it was the place where she collected all her possessions together into a massive private archive, library and museum. Her son, the Kaiser, hated her, and so she left the place to her daughter Margaret... who married into the Hessian royal family. The castle then became the main Hessian royal home. The letters in question would have had a very good chance of being there, in fact better than anywhere else. That is a simple matter of historical record. If you want to disprove an apparently odd statement, you need to investigate it first. It doesn't mean that treasonable letters weren't at issue, but if the logic is: an obvious lie was told, so why did it need to be? it matters.

They make sweeping statements such as this over and over again, and leap to extraordinary conclusions on little to no evidence. The factual errors are endless, and make the hypotheses even more unreliable. Another example: the Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in WW2. The flight apparently took a strange route. From this rather sparse information, the authors deduce that Rudolph Hesse was also on the plane, that he also died, and that the man imprisoned in Spandau was therefore a double, a modern-day Man In The Iron Mask. The other Nazis tried at Nuremberg presumably had no problem going along with this deception, and the millions who saw newsreels of the man over decades couldn't spot any problem either. Just... ridiculous. The whole conspiracy theorist breathlessness and self-righteousness that pervades the book is familiar to anyone who's read anti-MMR arguments, or anything by anyone who thinks that 911 was a CIA conspiracy, or that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, or... you get the idea.

There is also a huge amount of very selective quotation - if an exiled Frenchman, hostile to the British and miserable away from his homeland, makes vicious comments about the King, Queen, Prime Minister and entire wartime British population, cherry-picking the comment about the Queen and presenting it in isolation is not honest, even - in fact especially - if it supports your thesis about her. Selective quotation of this nature is rife, and very unfortunate.

There is room for a book on the shady financial dealings of the Windsors, as it's ridiculous that the royal family of a small North Atlantic island are better paid than all the other European monarchies put together, and their taxation dealings have certainly been questionable. But this book is shoddy and inaccurate, not to mention hysterical, and the unscholarly and weakly researched evidence makes it a waste of time. A missed opportunity, and a real shame.