Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining but far from accurate
Review: Why does this book have such contradictory reviews from newspapers and magazines, compared to some of the readers? I read this book last year, and again this year when I finally decided to acquire my own copy despite all the problems I had with the book.Firstly, this book is indeed entertaining, with some very good sketches and with lots of interesting little snippets about the lives of the richest and noblest members of British society in the first decades of the 19th century. It makes for a good read from that point of view, especially if you are more interested in the feel of how the "ton" or high society lived than in historical accuracy. The book is not meant to be a history of the entire Regency period, and nor is it meant to be a political history. On the other hand, I would have liked to have seen a little more reference to the major political figures of the day, given that politics was as important as economics to the aristocrats of the Regency period - even if they often chose to ignore both. It is certainly a pity that there is little discussion of the Prince Regent's association with Fox and the Whigs, or for that matter on what was happening politically. Even for a mostly social history of the elite, the omission of some major political events and trends is surprising. I do have the same problems with the book that have been so elegantly expressed by others. One of the things that shocked me was that Miss Murray claimed to have done all her research with first-hand sources and in fact thanks the staff at the Windsor Castle library and so forth. The second thing that shocked me even more were the enconiums paid her by several eminent personages who should have noted some of the problems. Yes, she collected a vast array of data and an equally vast stock of anecdote and wove them into a light-hearted look at the Regency era. But all the same, she makes some remarkable mistakes for someone who claims to have done all her research. I found the index to be very frustrating, because everytime I tried to look up someone, that reference was useless. Someone obviously slipped up here. The author's references to peers and peeresses were also frequently inaccurate. It may be pedantic of me to demand that she correctly identify a certain peer as Lord Yarmouth as the heir of the 2nd Marquess of Hertford. But for those not conversant with the peerage (and even for some who are), such explanations are vital. I also find it frustrating when an author casually mixes up two countesses of Jersey who are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, with the elder being the royal mistress and the younger being the noted society hostess and arbiter of fashion. Finally, in a book so strewn with names and references to this peer and that, an appendix with a list of the main personages who are mentioned in the book would have helped greatly. [Or a detailed index]. For a good example of both, see the recent collection of the Churchill letters edited by his daughter Mary Soames. What are the merits of this book? First, it is easy reading. Second, it is still in print and relatively inexpensive. Third, it includes several anecdotes about various peers, aristocratic ladies, and courtesans which certainly makes for interesting reading. On the other hand, it is not the book to read if you really want to understand what was going on in high society or for that matter in the rest of English society. Some other reviewers have recommended Stella Margetson, but her books are not easy to locate outside large university libraries. J.B. Priestly's The Prince of Pleasure (not the eponymous Saul David book) is a good start but there are probably even better books. For the gossip, I strongly recommend the originals (Creevey, Gronow, Greville and so forth), if you have the interest and the patience. Why not get the gossip from the source after all?
Rating: 
Summary: Check the Sources - this book is alarmingly bad
Review: Wow - this book as elicited quite a few reviews hasn't it? I was really interested in reading it as I love this period, but I read the reviews here carefully and wondered about the seeming huge polarity in popularity of the book. I didn't really know much about the Regency times and would have quite happily accepted the rave reviews - it is after all a pretty book. I was very interested in the detail in some of the reviews here which cited specific problems with Murray's sources - so I checked out the books. Its pretty easy to get hold of Roger Fulford's book "the Royal Dukes" - which Murray says she used as a source for her book - and lo and behold she has misrepresented events. I then had a look at the a few Brummell biographies in my library including the one she has in her bibliography - and again - Murray misrepresented and misdated events. What other events has she misdated or mis-represented in this book? I guess I could continue looking - but I have since thrown the book out in disgust. I guess I just prefer authors who are accurate.
| 
