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

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.

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

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.

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.