I want to apologize to people who bought this book on my recommendation. I said to several people that Robert Lacey is a respected historian. His book on Queen Elizabeth II is excellent and highly regarded,
Battle of Brothers will never be highly regarded. It won't be long before this book ends up on remainder tables. Please, just walk by, don't buy it. This book is one of the worst royal books that I have read in a long time.
Seriously, it is really bad, Lacey is the Historical Consultant to The Crown, but it is apparent that he is not helping the program, which is consistently inaccurate.
It appears that Lacey was handed a pile of tabloid news clips and proceeded to write a book based on quotes from the Sun, the Daily Mail, and other tabloid newspapers. He also cites Kitty Kelley's error-filled The Windsors.. [I am cited in the acknowledgments of this book only because the author attended one or two of my lectures at the Smithsonian. She did not learn anything, however.]
Lacey highlights the issues between William and Harry as only a tabloid writer can do, but when you cite largely only tabloid stories, you lose credibility. No substance, just scandal.
And now the mistakes:
page 6. Although Prince Charles was not the first heir to the throne born without the Home Secretary witnessing his birth. Clement Atlee's government decided that the Home Secretary was no longer needed, but, facts matter. The Home Secretary's last royal birth was on December 25, 1936, when the Duchess of Kent gave birth to Princess Alexandra. The Home Secretary was not present for the births of Prince William of Gloucester, Prince Michael of Kent, and Prince Richard of Gloucester in 1941, 1942, and 1944, respectively, due to the second world war.
Although the Duchess of Gloucester was first to give birth at the Lindo Wing in 1974, it was Princess Anne, not Charles, who was the first royal to allow photographers to snap her when she left the Lindo Wing in 1977 with her son, Peter Phillips. She was also photographed leaving with Zara in 1981.
But it was the Duchess of Kent was the first British royal to pose for photographers after leaving King's College Hospital with her newborn son Lord Nicholas Windsor in July 1970. The Duchess was also the first British royal to give birth in a hospital.
Page 7 No, Mr. Lacey, Frogmore Cottage was never a "collection of cottages." At some point, during the second world war or shortly afterward that Frogmore Cottage was converted into 5 staff apartments. In 2018, I wrote a detailed history on Frogmore Cottage.
https://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2018/11/frogmore-cottage-history.html
Page 8. Lacey does not provide Harry and Meghan with any favors. He makes rather snide comments about their "deluxe, five-star instincts" when writing about Meghan giving birth at Britain's "most expensive delivery facility, the US-owned Portland Hospital." He cites several celebrities giving birth at the Portland but neglects to mention the York princesses, Beatrice and Eugenie, who were born at the Portland.
And there is the laughable mistake that Lacey made on page 188, "so here was the first reason why Catherine Middleton is due one day to be Queen Catherine the Sixth."
Mr. Lacey, consorts do not get regnal numbers. Only the sovereign is entitled to a regnal number. The Duchess of Cambridge will be the sixth consort named Catherine or Katherine or Katheryn. But she will not be Queen Catherine VI.
Let's move to page 197: "As the son of Diana's friend, Lady Carolyn Herbert, Pelly had been close to both princes from childhood."
No, no, no, Mr. Lacey, Guy is not the son of Lady Carolyn Herbert. He is the son of the late John Gurney Pelly and Vanda Joan Allfrey. They married in 1973 and were the parents of three sons, Sam, James, and Guy.
Lady Carolyn Herbert, only daughter, and youngest child of the late 7th Earl of Carnarvon. In 1985, she married John Warren.
http://www.highclereracing.com.au/about-highclere/the-team/john-warren
Lady Carolyn and her husband have three children, Jakie, Susanna, and Alexander. For three years, Guy dated Susanna. Their relationship ended in 2010.
Research matters. Try it. Hire a fact-checker if your publisher is too cheap to keep one on speed dial.
The Prince of Wales' Private Secretary Clive Alderton did represent at the Sandringham Summit/ Lacey appears to not know that Alderton was not actually at Sandringham, or even in England, that weekend. He was an active participant in the summit, but he was in Bucharest that weekend, representing Charles at the 30th anniversary of Her Majesty Margareta's first visit to Romania.
How do I know this? I was also in Bucharest.
And then there is this one on page 339: "Windsors from Edward and Sophie Wessex to Anne's children had successfully managed the trick of mixing commerce and royal connections." Anne's children are not royal and do not carry out official engagements. Prince Edward's Ardent Productions had a few successes but was a financial liability and Sophie's discomfiture after her interview with a "reporter" from the News of the World posing as a sheik, led to a discussion of their working life.
The Queen asked her then Lord Chamberlain Lord Luce to guidelines for working royals. The Luce Guidelines, primarily designed for the Earl and Countess of Wessex, were announced on July 8, 2001. The guidelines have never been implemented as the Wessexes were persuaded to give up their careers and become full-time working royals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1428243.stm
If Lacey wanted an example of a royal with a successful career, he needed to look no further than the Duke of Gloucester. As the younger son of the late Duke of Gloucester, Prince Richard was never expected to be a full time working royal. He got a degree in architecture and was working as an architect when his older brother, Prince William, was killed in a plane crash in August 1972.
Richard gave up his career. He and his Danish-born wife, Birgitte, quickly became working royals, taking on numerous patronages and charities, especially after the death of his father, the Duke of Gloucester in June 1974.
Robert Lacey describes Harry and Meghan as a "bizarre exercise in self-indulgence," but blames Sir Edward Young for their decision to leave their jobs. He adds: "I am sure you found them a nightmare. They were -- and remain -- a deeply flawed fairy tale But could not say exactly the same of the monarchy you serve?"
Sir Edward is the Queen's private secretary, treated as a mere shadow of the Queen's previous Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt. In fairness, the queen did bring Sir Christopher back to the Palace to help guide the Sussexes.
Lacey's reliance on tabloid stories makes it difficult to truly understand the issues between William and Harry. Yes, their mother died when they were young, but that does not mean that they would always be close. It is time to stop using Diana's death as an excuse.
Battle of Brothers is a bizarre exercise in royal writing. To say I am disappointed is an understatement. I expected better from Robert Lacey, but it appears his historian crown is slipping.
I have not said this in a long time. This book has no merit. It doesn't even have an index.
Give this book a miss!
No comments:
Post a Comment