Rating: 
Summary: Gives a good look at the humans behind the glamor.
Review: "The Royals" is a book every monarchist and republican should read. If the monarchy is to survive, this is the book that clearly states what its faults are and how the monarchy can become more human. Republicans will find plenty of arguments for their point of view as well. The book's most important aspect, I think, is that it makes the Windsors appear remarkably human. Here is King Edward VIII, whose love cost him the throne; the unsure George VI; the cold and aloof Elizabeth II; the brave and tragic Princess Diana; and many other people. The reason why Kitty Kelley is so reviled in some circles is because she paints people as they are, not the way the official version makes it out to be. I think that the book's biggest argument is that the old ceremonies and etiquette need to be updated before they bring down the monarchy. The book is very detailed, giving a good look at the humans behind the glamour.
Rating: 
Summary: Fatuous trash
Review: Anyone with any sense of decency and moral fibre will not buy this book. The vast majority of allegations made therein are not only highly dubious, but also not especially horrendous. The two most "shocking" of the revelations seem to be, firstly that the Queen Mother was concieved out of wedlock, and secondly that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth was concieved by artificial insemenation. Are we therefore to assume that the trite Ms Kelley is such a moral zealot and medieval Christian fundementalist that she believes it is in some way evil to concieve a child out of wedlock? Apart from this, the Queen mother was one of many children, and was not the eldest. Are we threfore to assume that her older siblings too were born out of wedlock, and that this has gone unnoticed? As to the second assertion, aside from the fact that artificial insemination was not practiced until a decade after the birth of Her Majesty, whoever said that it was in any way morally wrong? One assumes that the "author" is making some sort of lurid suggestion about the identity of Her Majesty's father. Perhaps Ms Kelley and all of her ilk who have enjoyed this foul tome should compare pictures of Prince Albert, Edward VII, Geroge V, Edward VIII and George VI to current members of the royal family. The resemblance is so blindingly obvious that only so stupid a muck-raking pseudo-journalist as Ms Kelley would believe that they were anything other than closely related. Redaing this book has done nothing but strngthen my faith in the monarchy, and sympathise with the royal family as individuals that they have to put up with such harrassment from so-called reputable journalists.
Rating:
Summary: TERRIBLE!
Review: Terrible book! Awful! couldn't be worse. Lies and more lies all over the book. People should show more respect for ther Royals.
Rating: 
Summary: I didn¿t expect this book to be so funny
Review: In order to give someone an idea of where this book fits in on the historically accurate scale I'd have to compare Kitty's book to the E! cable channel while the more seriously written and researched books about the Royals can compare to the A&E cable channel.This book is worth reading mainly because in certain parts it's humorous. I actually had a good laugh over some of the stuff Kitty reported, especially about Fergie and also Princess Margaret's reported obsession with porno movies!
Rating:
Summary: spectacular: dishy, funny, and quite educational. Terrific!I
Review: I loved this book. Such a great read. I recommend it to anyone who cares about exclusive info, dishy interviews, by and about the british royal family. The author actually interviewed the Queen's butler and she didn't pay for the info, or so she says. But I believe her. I believe every word she wrote. She's the one who told all about Frank Sinatra, Jackie Onassis and Nancy Reagan. Good track record.
Rating:
Summary: Fun for the gullible and the easily impressed
Review: What a waste of trees. Kitty Kelley's book contains more mistakes, more unproven (and unlikely) innuendo, and less real information than any book on the Royals I've ever read. If you believe Kelley, you'll believe anything. Want to buy some land in Florida? The Royals reads as if it were originally a biography of Prince Philip, amended and expanded to include dirt about Sarah and Diana in order to boost sales. But the dirt is ludicrous! To give an example, Kelley implies that Prince Harry is really James Hewitt's son, pointing out the supposed 'similarity' between them. Of course, other than the red hair (which is also a Spencer characteristic), Harry looks nothing like Hewitt, but how many readers are going to check? What makes the innuendo impossible to believe are the unbelievable number of factual errors. Kelley apparently believes Piltdown Man is some kind of mystery, not a hoax (as has been known for decades); she doesn't know the difference between Denmark and Germany, calling Philip's ancestors "German-Danish", whatever that means; she doesn't know the difference between England and Britain, which is inexcusable in an author writing about the British royal family; she believes that George II, George III, George IV, William IV, Victoria and Edward VII didn't speak English (of course they all did); and she doesn't know when Prince Philip's grandmother died (well, she was only off by a few decades). And there are dozens and dozens and dozens more! Dates, events, proper names, locations -- if she can't even get the most easily checked facts right, why should the reader believe even one syllable of her unsubstantiated gossip? It's astounding. I would be shocked at all the positive reviews of this book if I didn't know how many people love trash even if it's garbage. This book wasn't even worth the energy expended in carrying it home from the library.
Rating:
Summary: Not fact but fiction
Review: If you've never read anything about the Windsors dont start with this book. It should not be called nonfiction but more like historical fiction. It is light and airy and an easy read but take it all with a grain of salt.
Rating:
Summary: WHAT FUN!! JOLLY GOOD TIME!!!
Review: What a fun book and that's all it is. There is nothing new in this book, well maybe a few things, but nothing that is going to make you drop open your mouth in shock. I've read other reviews here, and I'm finding people are taking this book much too seriously. It's just fun, Everyone loves a little gossip and that's all this is. Read it and have fun with it, don't start harping on what is real and what isn't. Just read, laugh and enjoy. Nothing in here is really nasty...to anyone. The only reason it was banned in the UK is because it would be real easy for the ROYALS to sue Ms. Kelly. I have to give this book five stars, it's just too rich...and really some fun reading. By the way the cover is GREAT! Pick it up, have a cup of tea, and enjoy. It's worth it!!! Trust me.
Rating:
Summary: GET IT RIGHT
Review: Actually, this isn't a review of Kittty's squalid little exercise, it's a scream of rage brought about by the first three lines of the first chapter. Please, please, will you remember that the words 'Britain' and 'England' are NOT interchangeable. For good or ill (and frankly, I'd put the Royal lot against a wall and aim....) they are not kings of England,and haven't been since 1707, they are kings of Britain, and that includes Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland.Although the Windsors should take note that Scotland and Wales recently opted for devolution, so the future of the British crown is hopefully a little shakier. And it's not just royal garbage rakers who make this mistake - it's really commonplace,even in heavy-weight academic work. So please, remember, we aren't all English. Oh, and incidentally, the Georges all spoke English. They abandoned German fairly quickly. Even the George who was preparing to flee from Bonnie Price Charlie. Who was a Scot. Shouldn't someone have taught Kitty a little more history ?
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely fabulous trash. The best royals book around.
Review: Yes, it is occassionally inaccurate, but it doesn't pretend toward seriousness at all. It is an exercize in intellectual slumming: a trashy, fabulous romp through all the sleazy and impossible-seeming rumours about the House of Windsor from its beginnings. It is an encyclopedia of faux-pas, diplomatic catastrophes and witty insults: totally unfair, no doubt, to the royals themselves, but killingly funny to anyone else. Enjoy a lost weekend with bitchy courtiers and too-observant servants: an impious treat for royal-watchers everywhere!
|
