Discover new books on Goodreads
See if your friends have read any of Richard Bartholomew's books
Richard’s 2025 Year in Books
Take a look at Richard’s Year in Books, including some fun facts about their reading.
Richard Bartholomew’s Followers (15)















More friends…
Richard Bartholomew
Goodreads Author
Member Since
August 2008
Richard Bartholomew
Average rating:
3.27
·
11
ratings
·
0
reviews
· 1 distinct work
• Similar authors
|
30 vteřin na náboženství
by
Richard Bartholomew (Goodreads Author),
Mathew Guest (Goodreads Author)
3.60 avg rating — 301 ratings
—
published
2011
—
16 editions
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
* Note: these are all the books on Goodreads for this author. To add more, click here.
Richard Bartholomew
is currently reading
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
Richard’s Recent Updates
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book really liked it
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
|
As of 2025, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" is among the most popular songs played at funerals in the UK, and jokes from Monty Python's Life of Brian are embedded in the country's popular culture. Meanwhile, one of the film's creators, Micha
As of 2025, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" is among the most popular songs played at funerals in the UK, and jokes from Monty Python's Life of Brian are embedded in the country's popular culture. Meanwhile, one of the film's creators, Michael Palin, is widely regarded as one of television's most genial and sympathetic presenters, meeting all sorts of people as he criss-crosses the globe making travel programmes. This book, by contrast, recalls a time when "Monty Python" was a byword for controversy and offence. Monty Python: The Case Against is a short work, its double-column presentation broken up by reproductions of primary sources scattered through the pages: Hewison is an old friend of Palin since university days, and the publisher, Eyre Methuen, appears to have an extensive archive of legal materials and other correspondence relating to its responsibility for producing Python-related tie-in books. While Brian raised the spectre of Britain's then-archaic blasphemy laws, the books and records (the latter produced by Charisma Records) meant navigating issues relating to "copyright, libel and obscenity", and there were also corporate censorship battles: the higher echelons of the BBC were troubled by some of the material they were broadcasting (although they didn’t always understand it, on one occasion misinterpreting a severed arm in a sketch as a "big penis"), and the "mutilation" of their material in the US led to Pythons acting as litigants for a change. American law does not recognise "moral rights", but judges in New York were prepared to consider that cutting up their work might be financially damaging and that "to call the resulting programme 'Monty Python' might be a misdirection under the Lanham Act". The matter was settled, but the Pythons had "made a contribution to the new laws of the entertainment industry." On the issue of copyright, there was an early skirmish when a firm of ukulele tutors objected to the reproduction of some sheet music in a spoof advertisement; more serious was when a copyright clearance for "Annie's Song" on an LP was disputed on the grounds both that the permission had not been for a parody and that the new lyrics were defamatory of John Denver. A curiosity of obscenity law was that whereas a jury trial might be persuaded to throw out a prosecution case, the law also allowed the police simply to seize materials and ask a magistrate to authorise their destruction. The Pythons did bend when proportionate, agreeing to remove a passing sexual reference from a printed monologue to prevent a publishing schedule being derailed. The battle over Brian, of course, is the most celebrated controversy, and the title for Chapter 5 – "This Sick Enterprise" – is taken from a quote from the Nationwide Festival of Light, which overlapped with Mary Whitehouse’s National Viewers and Listeners Association. A few years previously, NVLA had successfully sued Gay News over a "blasphemous" poem, and the Pythons turned to the paper's barrister, John Mortimer, for advice. Given the litany of commendation from various clerics, it is interesting that Graham Chapman received a supportive hand-written letter from a canon of St George's, Windsor (from the acknowledgements identifiable as James Atherton Fisher), who based on his reading of the script and a tape of the dialogue took the view that, while the film may be offensive, it "is not meant to be blasphemous and that it is extracting the maximum comedy out of false religion… and out of all who use religion as a cover for their particular form of sin". The publisher of the tie-in book was also nervous until the film was cleared for release by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) as an "AA" without cuts; however, the printer still refused to handle it after taking advice from John Smyth, the barrister who had previously brought the case against Gay News (more recently, it has come to light that Smyth was a notorious flagellomanic obsessed with beating boys, and may have been responsible for a fatality in Africa – the discovery of the scandal led to the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury over his knowledge of Smyth's predilections). The final chapter deals with the furore around the release of the film, focusing on the USA and the UK but also surveying other countries. In Britain, local councils could censor what cinemas were allowed to show, creating a bizarrely haphazard approach: Hewison quotes James Ferman, the Secretary of the BBFC as describing West Yorkshire as "the most heavily-censored area in the English-speaking world – and that includes South Africa." The Pythons refused to allow a compromise where some cinemas offered to exhibit the film as an "X" certificate. Abroad, Norway worked around censorship by simply not giving certain lines Norwegian subtitles, which had minimal impact in a country where English is widely understood. As expected, this chapter also includes an account of the famous TV chat-show clash with Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood. ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book it was amazing
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
|
Arthur Conan Doyle never revealed how he came to meet John Watson, although one theory noted by Leslie Klinger is that it was at the Phoenix Masonic Lodge, which Doyle joined in 1887. Whatever the circumstances, we know that Doyle became Watson’s col
Arthur Conan Doyle never revealed how he came to meet John Watson, although one theory noted by Leslie Klinger is that it was at the Phoenix Masonic Lodge, which Doyle joined in 1887. Whatever the circumstances, we know that Doyle became Watson’s collaborator and agent, and within the same year he arranged for Watson’s account of a double-murder investigation in London to be published in Beeton’s Christmas Annual. The first part of the work introduced Watson’s flatmate Sherlock Holmes, the world’s first self-described “consulting detective”, while in the second half another author (most likely Doyle himself) filled in the American background to the case, which involved Mormonism, forced marriage and revenge. A second long adventure appeared three years later in Lippincourt’s magazine, after which a further 58 stories about Holmes – mostly, but not all narrated by Watson – were famously published in the Strand magazine and collected into a series of books. Klinger’s “New Annotated Edition” in three volumes covers the complete canon of four novels and 56 stories, and alongside a wealth of general historical and geographical contextualisation his notes draw on decades of “Holmesian” (or, as Americans prefer, “Sherlockian”) scholarship. Like Bram Stoker (Klinger’s New Annotated Draculareviewed here), Watson and Doyle hid many names and locations behind pseudonyms, and a close reading of the stories – which were published over four decades – reveal numerous continuity muddles, character inconsistencies and arguable interpretations of events. For example, was Watson wounded in Afghanistan in the shoulder or in the leg? Or do both versions cover a more embarrassing anatomical location? Why does Watson in “The Adventure of the Empty House” present Holmes’s survival of his encounter with Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls as a great revelation, when the stories that follow demonstrate that everyone must have known about his return to London for some time already? One tempting explanation is that Doyle made the whole thing up as he went along: this is the approach taken by the Oxford Sherlock Holmes, which is concerned with Doyle’s supposed sources. Holmesians, however, for the most part reject this reductionist perspective, instead suggesting ingenuous (and sometimes tortuous) explanations and inferences that either resolve problems or put a different light on events (including how Holmes botched some cases or was taken in by false mitigations). Even among Holmesians, though, there are reservations about the authenticity of some of the material: “The Mazarin Stone”, for example, seems to be a pastiche based on a play script by Doyle, and it is notable that scientists even now are unable to explain or replicate the simian transformation described in “The Creeping Man”. One “fundamentalist” theory is that Holmes really did perish in Switzerland, but Watson or Doyle fabricated his return for financial reasons. On the other hand, similarity in “The Problem of Thor Bridge” to an incident related by the Austrian criminologist Hans Gross need not imply a derivative story, but rather that the individuals concerned were themselves inspired by Gross’s work. Although real identities are for the most part obscured, a few historical figures appear as themselves: most famously, A Study in Scarlet features Brigham Young, although Klinger notes that he is described as being younger than he actually was during the exodus to Utah, and that the size of the his entourage is too large (a few hundred rather than Doyle’s “nigh ten thousand” – Klinger also disputes allegations of forced conversions and of the continuation of the “Danite” secret society). More usually, though, real identities have had to inferred: according to Klinger, the character of Birdy Edwards in The Valley of Fear is “beyond question” the Pinkerton detective James McParlan, although their subsequent histories diverge. Holmes describes his grandmother as a sister to the French painter Vernet, although the family produced several painters and so it’s not clear which one is intended. There are also some more speculative connections, such as the suggestion that a figure met by Holmes at the Lyceum in The Sign of the Four was Bram Stoker himself, or that Holmes may have met M.R. James during the “Adventure of the Three Students” or worked against the Russian agent Dorijev in Tibet. Some of the notes also locate Holmes within a wider literary universe, although again the claims are speculative. Given Holmes’s French grandmother, might C. Auguste Dupin have been his grandfather, despite Holmes’s dismissive assessment of the French detective’s abilities? Might Nero Wolfe have been his son by Irene Adler? Was the unnamed politician mentioned in The Veiled Lodger “Dollmann” from The Riddle of the Sands? Was Fred Porlock, Moriarty’s minion in The Valley of Fear, actually Adolf Verloc from Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent? Was the dictator Murillo, mentioned in The Adventure of Wsiteria Lodge, actually the “Tiger of Haiti” Mayes, described in Arthur Morrison’s The Red Triangle? There also may be links with other non-Holmes Doyle stories, with Lady Frances Carfax perhaps related to Lord Rufton from “How the Brigadier Triumphed in England”. The “Great Hiatus” – the period when Holmes was thought be dead – has created a lot of Holmesian scope for this kind of thing. Did Holmes visit Shangri-La during this period? Was he a secret agent who, disguised as a Chinese official, rescued Rider-Haggard’s Ludwig Horace Holly from execution? Did Moriarty also survive, and reinvent himself as Fu Manchu? I was sorry to get rid of my old one-volume edition of facsimile reprints from the Strand, but the New Annotated Edition is far superior: Klinger notes textual variations between different editions, as well as material excised or amended from manuscripts. All the Strand illustrations by Sidney Paget and others are reproduced, as well as images from other editions (mostly American, but also including a German edition of A Study in Scarlet). The notes include the continuity recaps for serialised stories, and the extra material that appeared when the stories were collected into books are also present: prefaces by Watson and by Doyle, and a short essay by Joseph Bell. Klinger also provides a long introduction, titled “The World of Sherlock Holmes” (there is also a short foreword by John Le Carré, confusingly called the “Introduction”), as well as short essays on various themes attached to particular stories, and a chronology. ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book really liked it
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
|
As of 2025, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" is among the most popular songs played at funerals in the UK, and jokes from Monty Python's Life of Brian are embedded in the country's popular culture. Meanwhile, one of the film's creators, Micha
As of 2025, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" is among the most popular songs played at funerals in the UK, and jokes from Monty Python's Life of Brian are embedded in the country's popular culture. Meanwhile, one of the film's creators, Michael Palin, is widely regarded as one of television's most genial and sympathetic presenters, meeting all sorts of people as he criss-crosses the globe making travel programmes. This book, by contrast, recalls a time when "Monty Python" was a byword for controversy and offence. Monty Python: The Case Against is a short work, its double-column presentation broken up by reproductions of primary sources scattered through the pages: Hewison is an old friend of Palin since university days, and the publisher, Eyre Methuen, appears to have an extensive archive of legal materials and other correspondence relating to its responsibility for producing Python-related tie-in books. While Brian raised the spectre of Britain's then-archaic blasphemy laws, the books and records (the latter produced by Charisma Records) meant navigating issues relating to "copyright, libel and obscenity", and there were also corporate censorship battles: the higher echelons of the BBC were troubled by some of the material they were broadcasting (although they didn’t always understand it, on one occasion misinterpreting a severed arm in a sketch as a "big penis"), and the "mutilation" of their material in the US led to Pythons acting as litigants for a change. American law does not recognise "moral rights", but judges in New York were prepared to consider that cutting up their work might be financially damaging and that "to call the resulting programme 'Monty Python' might be a misdirection under the Lanham Act". The matter was settled, but the Pythons had "made a contribution to the new laws of the entertainment industry." On the issue of copyright, there was an early skirmish when a firm of ukulele tutors objected to the reproduction of some sheet music in a spoof advertisement; more serious was when a copyright clearance for "Annie's Song" on an LP was disputed on the grounds both that the permission had not been for a parody and that the new lyrics were defamatory of John Denver. A curiosity of obscenity law was that whereas a jury trial might be persuaded to throw out a prosecution case, the law also allowed the police simply to seize materials and ask a magistrate to authorise their destruction. The Pythons did bend when proportionate, agreeing to remove a passing sexual reference from a printed monologue to prevent a publishing schedule being derailed. The battle over Brian, of course, is the most celebrated controversy, and the title for Chapter 5 – "This Sick Enterprise" – is taken from a quote from the Nationwide Festival of Light, which overlapped with Mary Whitehouse’s National Viewers and Listeners Association. A few years previously, NVLA had successfully sued Gay News over a "blasphemous" poem, and the Pythons turned to the paper's barrister, John Mortimer, for advice. Given the litany of commendation from various clerics, it is interesting that Graham Chapman received a supportive hand-written letter from a canon of St George's, Windsor (from the acknowledgements identifiable as James Atherton Fisher), who based on his reading of the script and a tape of the dialogue took the view that, while the film may be offensive, it "is not meant to be blasphemous and that it is extracting the maximum comedy out of false religion… and out of all who use religion as a cover for their particular form of sin". The publisher of the tie-in book was also nervous until the film was cleared for release by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) as an "AA" without cuts; however, the printer still refused to handle it after taking advice from John Smyth, the barrister who had previously brought the case against Gay News (more recently, it has come to light that Smyth was a notorious flagellomanic obsessed with beating boys, and may have been responsible for a fatality in Africa – the discovery of the scandal led to the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury over his knowledge of Smyth's predilections). The final chapter deals with the furore around the release of the film, focusing on the USA and the UK but also surveying other countries. In Britain, local councils could censor what cinemas were allowed to show, creating a bizarrely haphazard approach: Hewison quotes James Ferman, the Secretary of the BBFC as describing West Yorkshire as "the most heavily-censored area in the English-speaking world – and that includes South Africa." The Pythons refused to allow a compromise where some cinemas offered to exhibit the film as an "X" certificate. Abroad, Norway worked around censorship by simply not giving certain lines Norwegian subtitles, which had minimal impact in a country where English is widely understood. As expected, this chapter also includes an account of the famous TV chat-show clash with Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood. ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book really liked it
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
|
The anti-Catholic "Popish plot" conspiracism that gripped England and Scotland in the late 1670s is synonymous with the name of Titus Oates. However, in this classic account of the affair J.P. Kenyon cautions that although "even today some Catholic a
The anti-Catholic "Popish plot" conspiracism that gripped England and Scotland in the late 1670s is synonymous with the name of Titus Oates. However, in this classic account of the affair J.P. Kenyon cautions that although "even today some Catholic apologists refer to the Plot as 'Oates's Plot'… this is to flatter him. The King's mystifying foreign policy produced a general feeling of apprehension and instability, and the ebullient self-confidence of his Catholic courtiers and hangers-on accentuated it". One of these courtiers was Edward Coleman (or Colman), secretary to Charles II's Catholic sister-in-law, Mary of Moderna. Coleman seems to have been a hapless figure, who as described by Kenyon "lived in an unreal world of his own". Coleman believed that the prospects of Catholics in England would be improved if Charles were less dependent on Parliament, and he entered into intrigues with the French court to bring this about. His scheming reflected "the delusion of all those outside the inner circle of power, that confessors and mistresses were significant political figures - more significant, indeed, than trusted and accredited ministers of state" – but although his efforts were ineffective he unwisely retained compromising correspondence that came to light in 1678, when he was accused by Oates to Charles and the Privy Council. Oates may have made a lucky guess, or he may have been given a tip-off by the Earl of Danby, the Lord Treasurer, who saw Colman as a bad influence. What happened next set the conditions for a perfect storm of conspiracism: the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, to whom Oates had given a full deposition just before Colman's arrest. The case remains one of English history's great unsolved crimes - three men were convicted of the murder on the basis of false testimony, but later exonerated. Treason trials followed: Coleman was hanged, drawn and quartered towards the end of 1678; and "between June 20th and August 27th, 1679, and including those tried in London, fourteen Catholics were executed; one layman, two Franciscans, four seminary priests and seven Jesuits. To these must be added two reprieved for special reasons, and one who died in prison before execution." Oates's supposed credibility was due to a period he had spent in France and Spain as "Fr Ambrose" – prior converting to Catholicism he had been a Baptist and an Anglican cleric, and he had just been dismissed from a position as a naval chaplain due to an allegation of homosexuality. He fared poorly as a novice at the English College at Valladolid and as a mature student St Omers, unable to master Latin, engaging in "bawdy and blasphemous conversation" and exhibiting homosexual tendencies, and at length he had been expelled back to London by the Provincial, Thomas Whitbread – who was to become one of Oates's victims. Having repudiated Catholicism (claiming that his conversion had been a pretence all along), Oates now claimed to have been the confidante of plotters at the highest levels. As Kenyon archly puts it: "Once it was accepted that such men would, half a dozen at a time, put their hands to letters detailing their treasonable plans, and consign their secrets to an ex-Anabaptist homosexual, then the rest followed." Difficulties were glossed over: Oates's testimony relied on impossible and inconsistent dates; he was unable to recognise Coleman (he blamed poor candlelight); and his checkered past already included a prior perjury charge at Hastings in Sussex, where his father Samuel Oates had been given the living of All Saints Church by a London physician named Sir Richard Barker: "There he eagerly joined in his father's quarrel with a prominent local family, the Parkers, but he made the mistake of accusing young William Parker of sodomy and his father of treasonable words. The elder Parker's case went up to the Privy Council, which exonerated him, and the local magistrates dismissed the case against his son." It was to escape the perjury charge that he took the position as a naval chaplain.* Kenyon suggests Oates's father may have prompted him to accuse Sir William Goring and Sir John Gage, two Catholics Sussex landowners. His allegations were also in some cases far-fetched: his "psychotic mind", in Kenyon’s judgement, was most in evidence in his suggestion of conspiracies between Jesuits and Cromwellians. Why were he and co-accusers such as Israel Tonge ("a crazy clergyman… a mental casualty of the Civil Wars") and William Bedloe taken so seriously? Kenyon explains: a seventeenth-century treason trial was not an attempt to ascertain the truth or administer justice, except in a punitive sense. It was a morality play, staged as a demonstration of government power, an affirmation of kingly authority, and a warning to the unwary.Judges could "coerce" juries, and it was generally understood that treason was so serious but difficult to prove that the accused were not to be allowed counsel or to sub poena witnesses, or even to be given a copy of the indictment against them – a way of proceeding that is "baffling and unpleasant" to modern readers. Bedloe, who when asked in court by one of his victims, Richard Langhorne, to clarify the extent of his allegations, "brazenly" replied that "Things may occur to my memory hereafter, which do not now" – the perennial boast of the false accuser. Kenyon's narrative is based on close readings of primary sources, although he also engages with earlier scholarly treatments (in particular, that Sir John Pollock) and even gives dues to a book about Godfrey’s murder by "the American detective story writer John Dickson Carr". He also dips into group psychology, quoting Neil Smelser's Theory of Collective Behaviour and through him Anselm Strauss (cited only as "Strauss", and without any specific reference). This is particularly pertinent to reports of "night riders", mysterious horsemen supposedly either seen or heard across the country. Although at times conversational in tone, parts of the text quite demanding. The trials held under Lord Chief Justice of England William Scroggs, with George Jeffreys as Recorder, are described in detail and at length, and it is not always clear that indviduals mentioned in passing in one place will become significant later on in the narrative, requiring a bit of back-and-forth. * Footnote: The MP for Hastings, Sir Denny Ashburnham of Broomham, was asked about the matter in court. He was "pitiably embarrassed" that his knowledge about it and of Oates's history of dishonesty going back to childhood might undermine the Crown's case, and Scroggs "got rid of" him "quickly enough". Ashburnham was a distant cousin of the Ashburnhams of Ashburnham and also son-in-law of John Ashburnham "the Cavalier". ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book really liked it
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
|
For many people in Britain of a certain age, the word "Granada" evokes not the sunshine and medieval romance of city in Spain, but rather the slate tiles and chimney pots of a modest Edwardian terrace under a damp and gloomy sky in the north of Engla
For many people in Britain of a certain age, the word "Granada" evokes not the sunshine and medieval romance of city in Spain, but rather the slate tiles and chimney pots of a modest Edwardian terrace under a damp and gloomy sky in the north of England. This is because for a long time a shot of some Salford rooftops formed the backdrop for the end credits to Coronation Street, a nationally popular soap opera of everyday life, which would sign off by fading into the logo and name of the programme maker: Granada, a regional franchise holder for independent (i.e. commercial) television. Granada Television had offices and studios in Manchester, but the larger Granada Group was based in London. It was headed by Sidney Bernstein, an Ilford-born second-generation Jewish migrant with a background in theatre and cinema. Bernstein first used "Granada" as an appropriately exotic name for a lush a new cinema that opened in Dover in Kent in 1930; as described by Moorehead: The entire town came to gape at a décor of such splendour that an admiring critic was reduced to describing it as a compromise between Russia and Spain. There was an enormous entrance hall, overlooked by a balcony with carved stone balustrades; there were Moorish arches and a feeling of 'infinity beyond'.Bernstein had commissioned a Russian theatre director, Theodore Komisarjevsky, as the designer, and it was the first of what would become a chain; similarly exuberant "Granada" cinemas next appeared at Walthamstow and Woolwich, although at the latter location a colour scheme "based on early church manuscripts with lines of gold, grey and red" had to be revised at the last minute for aesthetic reasons. The greatest triumph was at Tooting, where "the Grand Canal in Venice, the Ca D'Oro, the Palazzo Cavalli, and the Palazzo Foscari, all had had their say; so had thirteenth- and fourteenth-century French Gothic". Bernstein, born in 1899, famously joked about having been born with a silver screen in his mouth: by the time he left school aged 15 his father Alexander was already running theatres and cinemas, and renting out cinema equipment. In the 1920s, Sidney helped set up the Film Society with Iris Barry and Ivor Montagu, and following war work as an advisor to the Ministry of Information – which included organising the filming of horrors uncovered at the liberated Nazi camps – he moved for a short time into Hollywood film production, partnering with Alfred Hitchcock on Under Capricorn and Rope. The family business, however, had evolved into cinema almost by chance: Alexander was originally primarily a property developer, and his first foray into entertainment came about after he bought a plot of land in Edmonton. He planned to build some shops, and judged that a theatre would be a draw; the Edmonton Empire opened in 1908, and although Alexander "knew nothing about music halls", he wisely let the building out to experienced music hall professionals. Marie Lloyd performed at the Edmonton Empire just before she died, even though Sidney Bernstein had released her from her obligation when he heard that she was ill. By this time, music hall programmes had started to incorporate a "bioscope" segment into their entertainments, and Alexander had moved into building cinemas. Like Lloyd, Alexander died in 1922, at which point Sidney took complete control of the theatres and cinemas while his brother Cecil took charge of the property empire. As well as running cinemas, Bernstein was approached to organise private viewings for Lloyd George in Scotland and the Royal family at Sandringham. Although not an intellectual, Bernstein was interested the potential of cinema as a serious art form: Iris Barry, who at the Spectator was "one of the first serious critics of the cinema", became a close friend (and later, his ex-wife's mother-in-law), and it was through her that he was involved with the creation of the Film Society, which brought over European films for showings in London. He befriended Sergei Eisenstein, although there was some conflict in 1929 when he arranged for the Society to show Battleship Potemkin as a double bill with John Grierson's Drifters. Grierson felt the pairing was slight intended to question his originality, and Eisenstein was not pleased either (alas for them both, the two films are now bundled together on the British Film Institute's 2012 Blu-ray edition, which explicitly memorialises the "momentous" 1929 showing). Bernstein's war work included advising on pro-British messaging in films in the USA, and a 10-week visit to North Africa, where he was involved in the organisation of cinemas and the distribution of British films. He was particularly keen to visit the front line, having been refused enlistment in the First World War due to breathing difficulties caused by a sports injury that had disfigured his nose. In April 1945, he was in Germany: At the end of April 1945 the allies entered Buchenwald. Next day, towards the end of the afternoon, they reached Belsen. The following morning, on 22 April, Sidney came to the concentration camp. He stayed all day. That night he visited the nearest journalists' camp and persuaded an old friend, Alan Moorehead, of the Express, to go in and write about what he had seen. Then he drank an entire bottle of whisky; it had, friends remembered later, no effect on him at all.(Alan Moorehead, it just so happens, was the biographer's father). Bernstein persuaded the Allies to create a documentary about the camps, and for Alfred Hitchcock to offer his services – the biographer follows Bernstein's lead in calling Hitchcock the "director", although his involvement was from a distance in London, working through the footage and advising. For various reasons, the film was shelved before completion, but it was broadcast in 1984, under the title German Concentration Camps Factual Survey; this was the year after the biography was published, and one wonders whether the book helped build momentum for its release. Bernstein was opposed to the idea of commercial television – Moorehead's account of the various objections to commercial television draws attention to a less-remembered moral panic of the 1950s – but once it was clear that was going to happen anyway he decided to make a bid for a franchise. ITV Granada is still going strong, the last of the original ITV companies still in business. Bernstein did not have much affinity with Coronation Street, although he appreciated its popular appeal (and cheapness); he was more interested in documentary exposés and pushing the boundaries of the Television Act: Sidney… didn't really believe in impartiality. By letter and by meeting they fought, backwards and forwards, advancing one step, retreating the next. They fought about drunken driving, they fought about the monarchy, suicide and hire purchase. They fought, passionately, about 'What the Papers Say'. Jeremy Isaacs remembers Sir Robert Fraser coming to Granada and telling the assembled 'Searchlight' team that every single episode of the series had been a direct infringement of the Television Act in that it had expressed a single point of view. And when 'Searchlight' came to an end and 'World in Action' was born they fought about a naval prison in which a young man hanged himself (the programme was cancelled)…Granada also brought theatre into people's homes, most notably with a production of Look Back in Anger. It was Bernstein who persuaded Kenneth Clark that the National Theatre ought to include television cameras. In the 1960s, Bernstein also moved into publishing, first buying MacGibbon & Kee, then a half share in Jonathan Cape (company history reviewed here), and then Rupert Hart-Davis. At this time, Hart-Davies the company was owned by Harcourt Brace, but Rupert Hart-Davis the man (biography reviewed here) retained his position and had the right of veto. Their meeting went well, although Bernstein made a faux pas by reminiscing about Komisarjevsky – he had forgotten that Hart-Davis's wife Peggy Ashcroft had left Hart-Davis for the Russian. Bernstein entered paperback publishing by purchasing Panther from Joseph Pacey, who "chose to sell to him rather than an American company who had offered more money". The various interests were eventually branded as Granada, with Paladin Books created in 1970 for "highbrow non-fiction". Although not billed as the "authorized biography" the book is obviously just that: it was published by Jonathan Cape, and his biographer was a family friend. Moorhead writes that much of her work was based on "many hours of conversation that I had with Lord Bernstein over eighteen months", as well as access to "his papers and archives". Something unauthorized might have been a very dicey prospect during his lifetime, given his infamously litigious reputation, although there's no sense that anything has been covered up. However, a biographer has to be wary of sounding hagiographic, and so we read about conflict and arguments with his father and of times when he would "explode into irrational anger" and "stalk through the offices complaining that the telephone directories were in the wrong order, or that too much stationery was being hoarded", as a contrast to his generally courteous and fastidious impression. On politics, Bernstein "started out in the 1920s as a champion of the underdog, believing that socialism could improve the lot of man", and he remained a Labour supporter for his entire life. During the 1930s, he worked with Otto Katz and Ellen Wilkinson in supporting Spanish Republicans and refugees from Franco; later in life, he became a patron of Israeli causes, including advising on a non-profit television station and funding research into patterns of immigration to Israel ("Emmanuel Marx of Tel Aviv's Faculty of Social Sciences… said that it was due to the Bernstein Research Fund that social anthropology was established as an academic discipline in Israel"). Some aspects of Bernstein's personal life are handled discreetly: he first married aged 36, but there are no references to younger romantic entanglements. Some "human interest" background detail is trivial but revealing, such as an account of how after renting out the country property of Long Barn from Harold Nicholson and Vita Sackville-West he clashed with the latter over the care of some rare plants in the garden, winning the argument by paying for an official of the Royal Horticultural Society to inspect them and adjudicate. ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book really liked it
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
|
In October 1917, the First World War had been dragging on for three years, the stagnation epitomised by the ongoing inability to dislodge German forces at Passchendaele. In response, Britain's prime minister, David Lloyd George, invited a party that
In October 1917, the First World War had been dragging on for three years, the stagnation epitomised by the ongoing inability to dislodge German forces at Passchendaele. In response, Britain's prime minister, David Lloyd George, invited a party that included France's new premier Paul Painlevé and the South African general Jan Smuts for unofficial talks on how unity of command might transform the Allies' prospects. The venue for the meeting was Chequers, the Buckinghamshire country home of Arthur Lee MP, although Lee yielded the role of host – and his bedroom – to Lloyd George. This was the first time that the sixteenth-century house had been put at the disposal of a prime minister, two months before the Chequers Estate Act designated it as the future official country residence of the serving prime minister from the time that Arthur Lee and his wife Ruth relinquished their interest. The Lees moved out in 1921, and since then it has been used by all Prime Ministers aside from Bonar Law, whose premiership was cut short by mortal illness after 209 days (even Liz Truss used the property for "farewell parties" towards the end of her 45-day reign in 2022). The author of this book, of course, is the wife of John Major, and it was written and published while he was in office. Many of the historical details have been culled from previously published works and memoirs, but her choice of material is judicious and shaped into a pleasing narrative overview. The book is heavily illustrated both with newly commissioned photographs by Mark Fiennes and older black-and-white images for comparison. Lee, the son of a clergyman, was a former military man and diplomat, and while serving as military attaché at the British Embassy in Washington he had married Ruth Moore, the wealthy daughter of the New York banker John Godfrey Moore. The Lees took a lifetime tenancy of Chequers in 1909, and contracted Reginald Blomfield to undertake numerous restoration works, including the removal of Victorian pseudo-gothic accretions. The owner at this time was an aristocrat named Henry Astley, and after his death in an aviation accident in 1912 Ruth and her sister Faith took the opportunity to make an outright purchase from his widow May Kinder (a former comedy actress), which they then gifted to Arthur. However, being childless, Arthur and Ruth saw donation to the nation as the best way to preserve the legacy of their domestic vision. The 1917 Act covers all bases politically: It is not possible to foresee or foretell from what classes or conditions of life the future wielders of power in this country will be drawn. Some may be as in the past men of wealth and famous descent; some may belong to the world of trade and business; others may spring from the ranks of the manual toilers. To none of these in the midst of their strenuous and responsible labours could the spirit and anodyne of Chequers do anything but good. In the city-bred man especially, the periodic contact with the most typical rural life would create and preserve a just sense of proportion between the claims of town and country. To the revolutionary statesman the antiquity and calm tenacity of Chequers and its annals might suggest some saving virtues in the continuity of English history and exercise a check upon too hasty upheavals, whilst even the most reactionary could scarcely be insensible to the spirit of human freedom which permeates the countryside of Hampden, Burke and Milton.The last part of the book is on "political life at Chequers", treating each prime minister in turn and ending with personal anecdotes of how she and John received at different times various foreign leaders, such as the Clintons and Boris Yeltsin – famously, John Major took Yeltsin to the local pub, the Bernard Arms (now gone), which opened up especially for them after Yeltsin knocked on the door. Prime ministers resident at Chequers also sometimes patronised that other village establishment, the local church: a service attended by Harold Macmillan and Dwight Eisenhower saw "the largest congregation since Janet Attlee's wedding"; the vicar, the Rev. Cyril White, "had preached to every Prime Minister since Baldwin". This account of Chequers in the twentieth century is preceded by a more general history and guided tour. The estate's distinctive name refers to the chequer-board (or, more precisely, a chequered tablecloth) on which the monarch's finances were tallied in the medieval period; in the twelfth century, the land on which the house would be built was transferred from the Knights Hospitallers to Elias Ostiarius, an official of the Court of the Exchequer who took the name "De Scaccario" or "de Chekers" to reflect his responsibility for setting up the table. The estate may simply reflect his name, although antiquarians theorised that it may have been the place where payments were made. De Scaccario's great-daughter married a landowner named William de Alta Ripa, whose name in Norman French, "Haut Rive", evolved into Dawtrey and then Hawtrey – a surname that is commemorated at Chequers with the Hawtrey Room. The last male Hawtrey in residence was William Hawtrey, a founder of the Muscovy Company of London in the sixteenth century, and it was he who rebuilt the house as the Tudor residence it is today. This Hawtrey was also for a time the reluctant custodian of Lady Mary Grey, a granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister Mary and the younger sister of the ill-fated Lady Janes Grey. Mary had been packed off to Chequers following an "indiscreet" marriage, and her attic room remains known as the "Prison Room". The house then passed down through various families through intermarriage – William Hawtrey's granddaughter Mary was contracted into a child marriage ("by special licence of the Archbishop of Canterbury") to Francis Wolley, the son of Elizabeth’s Latin secretary, and after their deaths, Chequers Court (as it was known then) passed to Mary's sister Bridget, wife of Sir Henry Croke. Henry's granddaughter, another Mary, married John Thurbarane, having been wooed with notes scribbled into the margins of a copy of Paradise Lost, and their daughter Joanna married first one Colonel Edmund Rivett and after his death Sir John Russell, grandson of Oliver Cromwell through his daughter Frances. It was a Russell descendant, Rosalind Frankland Russell, who married into the Astley family; thus the purchase from May Kinder in 1917 was the first time the house had ever been sold rather an inherited – but given so many female inheritors it seems appropriate that the seller was a woman selling to two other women. Introducing the "guidebook" part of the book, Major writes that "Chequers can never be open to the public and I like to think Arthur Lee would have no objection to this book, which takes the reader behind the scenes of an intriguing part of our national heritage". As well as describing the architecture and décor, Major notes various artefacts: Cromwell memorabilia; a table used by Napoleon on St Helena; a ring once owned by Elizabeth I; and various paintings, including a work formely attributed to Rembrandt that Lee purchased from the Earl of Ashburnham's collection and a Rubens that according to legend had been "touched up" by Winston Churchill. Of particular interest, though, are the items on the bookshelves in the Long Gallery, collected by different owners over the years: The most treasured is an exquisitely illuminated fifteenth-century manuscript Missal from Bressanone in the Tyrol, immaculately preserved in its original velvet binding with gilt bosses and clasps. The other is a first edition of Albertus Magnus’ Paradise Animae, printed in, Cologne in 1483, seven years before Caxton first brought printing to England. There is a first printed edition (1503) of all but four of Euripides’ tragedies, added to the library by Sir George Russell, as well as sixteenth-century first editions of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and Thermophoriazusae and a translation by Erasmus of Lucian of Samosata’s Saturnalia (published in Cologne), with the arms of Louis XIII on the binding. In a first illustrated edition of Milton’s Paradise Lost (1688) are Sergeant Thurbarne’s annotations; and a sixteenth-century volume of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs has Sir Robert Croke’s name inscribed on the fly-leaf.Less fortunate is The Gollywogg Book, which recalls when Faith Moore brought a number of the grotesque dolls to the house for auction as a fundraising effort in the First World War: "The book remains in the second floor corridor, where Golliwogg lived, which is still known as the Golliwogg Corridor". Hopefully that is no longer the case. Of course, every country house needs a touch of the uncanny, and Lloyd George thought his dog Chong could see a ghost: "Chong was particularly restless in the Long Gallery, where his master liked to rest in the afternoon. With his eyes fixed on one spot in the room, the dog used to set up a persistent barking." ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book liked it
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
|
A book about the making of a film that begins with a congratulatory foreword (styled as the "Introduction") by the producer's father is obviously going to be an "approved" account; the author may not have been under instruction to produce PR, but an
A book about the making of a film that begins with a congratulatory foreword (styled as the "Introduction") by the producer's father is obviously going to be an "approved" account; the author may not have been under instruction to produce PR, but an embedded journalist always risks identification with the interests of his or her hosts at the expense of a critical perspective. Naha does recount various disasters and accidents that beset the production of the 1984 film of Dune at the "antiquated" Churubusco film studio in Mexico, but these are all challenges that are overcome with ingenuity and perseverance, and no dirty linen is washed in public – Dino De Laurentiis states that he "stayed in the background", although later sources suggest that not everyone remembers it that way. The last few chapters of the book are concerned with the film's post-production, but at the time of publication editing was still underway, meaning that there's no hint of how arguments over the final cut would sour the whole project and contribute to the film’s reputation as a critical failure. Publication ahead of the film's release perhaps also explains why The Making of Dune has so little to say about David Lynch’s creative decisions as regards the script. We are shown lavish costumes, sets and spaceships, and there's an account of how one plot element (Paul's duel to the death Jamis) had to be jettisoned for reasons of pacing, but controversial changes and additions to the story are not referenced at all. Lynch had apparently scripted two sequels, but it is difficult to see how they would have worked given the massive divergence at the end of Dune, when Paul creates a rainstorm (welcomed by the Fremen despite the destruction of their entire way of life and economy). Why was Baron Harkonnen given not only a grotesque skin disease (criticised on the film’s release as a homophobic AIDS reference) but also a gratuitously mad doctor (played by Leonardo Cimino) who seems to have wondered in from an old Universal horror film? Sting carrying a shaved cat in a cage does get a mention and even a photograph, but no explanation. If Frank Herbert, who visited the set, had any misgivings, he either kept them to himself, or off the record. It seems he had a pragmatic attitude towards the book (reviewed here) that defines his reputation: "once it was published, I wasn't really aware of what was going on with the book, to be quite candid. I have this newspaperman's attitude about yesterday's news, you know? I've done that one, now let me do something else". Instead, and despite Naha being himself a science-fiction creative, much of the interview material (Naha had access to most of the cast and crew) is concerned with the "nuts and bolts" of filmmaking and acting. The technical side of how various effects were achieved can be dull and even opaque in places, although Naha tries to liven things up with some humorous journalistic alliteration; in one typical backgrounder he writes that "Carlo Rambaldi is the man who designed and built the blood-thirsty finned fury in Orca, the Killer Whale, the barbaric bison in The White Buffalo and the colossal King Kong". The book's publishing schedule also means that there is no discussion of the soundtrack, which had still not been decided upon at the time. The Making of Dune is heavily illustrated, albeit in black and white (which Lynch might perhaps have appreciated). One image, described as "a discarded design for a second stage guild navigator", is oddly reminiscent of John Hurt's makeup in Lynch's previous film, although he would have had to have called it The Aardvark Man. ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book it was amazing
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
|
Chapter 10 of this memoir is titled "The Idol of Millions", in reference to a period in the 1950s during which Daniel Farson was a household name as a cutting-edge television interviewer and documentary-maker working for Associated-Rediffusion: such
Chapter 10 of this memoir is titled "The Idol of Millions", in reference to a period in the 1950s during which Daniel Farson was a household name as a cutting-edge television interviewer and documentary-maker working for Associated-Rediffusion: such was Farson’s fame that he was parodied by Benny Hill, and tourist boats on the Thames would point out his riverside home in Limehouse. Celebrity had found Farson despite some unconventional career choices suggestive of curiosity and a sense of adventure rather than burning ambition: although he had previously worked as a journalist and photographer. he had thrown it in to take up a menial position in the merchant navy (although he kept his hand in with some reporting, to the captain’s fury). Back in London, his break into television came via a chance conversation in Soho’s French Pub, and it seems that he regarded fame lightly, even cynically. He also experienced one of the downsides when an arrest for being drunk and disorderly prompted excruciating headlines. Farson's presence on the 1950s Soho "scene" (the subject of one of his books) provided him with numerous useful contacts, such as the photographer John Deakin (whose photo of Farson is used as the book’s cover), Colin Wilson and, probably most significantly, Francis Bacon, with whom he caroused at venues such as the Colony Room (see review here): disarmingly, Farson had no pretensions to having knowledge of art, but he became Bacon’s biographer and at the time of his death (shortly after this memoir was published) he was working on a book about Gilbert and George. Farson perhaps always took being well-connected for granted: his father was the UK-based American author Negley Farson, and his mother, "Eve" Stoker, was the niece of Bram Stoker (see review here). As a child evacuee in North America his American godfather Tom Seyster introduced him to Somerset Maugham and Gerald Haxton, and it was his father who got him into teenage journalism with Guy L’Estrange’s decrepit Central Press (called "the Central Press Agency" by Farson). This was prior to his national service, which as a dual national he chose to take as an American serviceman – at first he remained in England (discovering that shopkeepers tried to take advantage of assumed American unfamiliarly with Britain’s convoluted pre-decimal currency) and then in Germany, where he had an encounter with Helen Keller. Cambridge came next, where he edited a magazine that published Peter and Anthony Schaffer, Julian Slade, Norman St John Stevas, Gavin Lambert, Lindsay Anderson and Kenneth Tynan. While living in the East End Farson tried his hand at a completely different venture, reflective of another interest: he bought a run-down pub on the Isle of Dogs, which he renamed The Waterman’s Arms and developed into an entertainment venue offering old time music hall acts. Culturally, it was a great success, and Farson recalls that it became "one of the places to go". Visitors included Groucho Marx, Clint Eastwood and Frankie Howerd; "Francis Bacon brought William Burroughs", and Judy Garland gave an impromptu late-night concert in the street outside to evade licensing regulations. As a viable business, though, it was something of a disaster, and Farson was eventually forced to sell. Farson does not seem to have a judgemental person, but his self-reproaches for his own lack of foresight when it came to financial matters are mixed with invective against financial advisers and bank managers. As time went on he was forced to sell possessions to make ends meet, and eventually to downsize from his inherited home in north Devon to a smaller residence in Appledore. Not all of Farson’s associations were creditable: he admits to having been attracted by the "glamour" of the Kray twins, but writes that he only really understood how dangerous they were after the Lord Boothy affair. On one occasion Ronnie admonished him to tone down some bad language while there were "ladies present", but he also also provided Farson with a minder, one Edward Smith, who was inevitably known as "Mad Teddy". Through residence in Devon he got caught up in the Jeremy Thorpe affair, due to being acquainted with both Thorpe and Norman Scott, and was even interviewed by police. Farson writes candidly about his sexuality and his alcoholism: his fondness for rough young men in one instance compromised his work as a television presenter due to a black eye. The alcoholism was perhaps genetic: his father was similarly afflicted, and while young he resented well-meant advice from adults who asked him not to judge his old man too harshly – in fact, he didn’t mind at all, and writes that one of his regrets is that they never got drunk together. Farson doesn’t write much about his later career, although there is a photograph of an art quiz show he presented for Channel 4 in the 1980s, in which Vincent Price was one of the guests (during which Price encountered and fell out with Roald Dahl). He continued to work as a newspaper journalist and as a television critic in the 1980s, although in the latter role his wonderlust was once again at the expense of his career as his absences created an opening for his deputy Alan Coren to take over. The last part of the book is a travelogue of a visit to the Caucasus during the last days of the USSR, undertaken in tribute to his father. One area that Farson plays down is his career as a writer, and his interest in the macabre. Perhaps he regarded tomes such as The Hamlyn Book of Ghosts in Fact and Fiction and Vampires, Zombies and Monster Men as hack work, but for a generation now in middle age Farson’s name is associated less with the "Soho of the Fifties" as with the "weird 1970s". There are, though, a few pages devoted to his work on Jack the Ripper – in the 1950s he made a documentary featuring interviews with people who had been alive at the time, and in 1972 published a book on the subject. His researches were informed by access to the private notes of Sir Melville Macnaghten, who became Assistant Chief Constable of the Met in 1889; these were in the hands of his daughter Christobel Aberconway (typically, Farson adds that she was the one-time "mistress of Samuel Courtauld"). Farson’s gossipy digressions are interesting, but rely on casual recollection. One mistake I noticed was the claim that the ornithologist David Bannerman (a close friend, and perhaps more, of his mother) had married "J.B. Priestley’s widow Jacquetta Hawkes" – in fact, Bannerman had married Priestley’s earlier ex-wife Jane Wyndham-Lewis (née Holland). The error slipped in despite Hawkes’s obituaries appearing during the period when he was writing the book. ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book really liked it
Death Warrant: Kenneth Noye, the Brink's-Mat Robbery and the Gold
by William Pearson (Goodreads Author) |
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
In the mid-1980s, a property developer named Gordon Parry and a solicitor named Michael Relton met with a minicab firm owner named Brian Perry to discuss investing in the derelict London Docklands. Perry was supposed to be looking after gold from the
In the mid-1980s, a property developer named Gordon Parry and a solicitor named Michael Relton met with a minicab firm owner named Brian Perry to discuss investing in the derelict London Docklands. Perry was supposed to be looking after gold from the Brinks-Mat robbery on behalf of one of the thieves, Micky McAvoy, but with McAvoy at the time serving 25 years in prison Perry decided to make use of the loot himself – and having arranged for some of the gold to be smelted and sold off, he now needed to launder the money:Standing on the empty quay of Odessa Wharf, letting his imagination freewheel while Parry conjured offices and apartment blocks, conference centres and marinas from the cold London clay beneath their feet, Perry felt an old familiar stirring deep in his soul. It was greed. Why not buy into the Docklands Dream, then going dirt-cheap at £35 a square foot? Why not make a huge profit; accumulate shedloads of cash; double or even quadruple the money he was meant to be holding in trust for his friends in jail?... A phoenix London Docklands was rising, and a fat chunk of it was stretching skyward on the proceeds of the stolen Brink’s-Mat gold. In Margaret Thatcher’s ‘There is no such thing as society’ Britain, this was and remains beyond irony.If this sordid and sanguinary saga has any broader historical significance beyond being a cautionary tale of human greed, corruption and folly, then this is it. In Pearson's judgement, "if you’ve bought gold jewellery since 1983, you’re probably wearing part of the melted-down Brink’s-Mat hoard". Pearson’s account starts with a dramatic reconstruction of the 1983 robbery at the Heathrow International Trading Estate: elaborate security measures and protocols proved useless protection against a corrupt security guard. The guard in question, one Anthony Black, comes across as hapless rather than cunning, and his flakiness proved to be a double-edged sword: it didn’t take much work for the police to discover that Black was living with the sister of a career criminal named Brian Robinson, and he cracked under questioning. Black named Robinson and McAvoy in return for a reduced sentence, and wisely hasn’t been heard from since. The gang expected a smaller a haul of money – they were as surprised as anyone to have pulled off "the robbery of the century", comprising £26 million worth of bullion. In doing so, it turned out they had bitten off more than they could chew. McAvoy got to hear of Perry’s use of the gold when bars were found by police at the rural Kent home of Kenneth Noye, brought in to undertake the alchemical process of turning gold into paper. Not long after the robbery, a man named Michael Lawson had been indiscreet enough to purchase a heavy-duty smelter, and although he used a false name the suspicious seller went to police and identified him from mugshots. Noye then came onto the police radar due to his proximity to Lawson in Kent and their mutual membership of a Masonic lodge in Hammersmith attended by several bullion dealers (and police officers). More of the gold meanwhile had made its way to the West Country, where it was also being smelted into an untraceable form by Noye’s associate John Palmer (biography reviewed here). However, the proof of Noye’s involvement following a long surveillance operation had been achieved at a terrible human cost: infamously, Noye’s dogs had alerted him to the presence of someone lurking in his garden after dark, and Noye had stabbed to death the intruder – an undercover detective constable named John Fordham. Noye and his house-guest Brian Reader (later better-known as ringleader of the Hatton Garden Job) both stood trial for murder, but were acquitted after Noye testified that he thought he had been under attack; the trial, presided over by Mr Justice Caulfield (Pearson includes an aside about Caulfield's notorious summing-up in the Jeffrey Archer libel trial two years later), included taking the jury to Noye's garden in the dark, during which someone jumped out at them unexpectedly as a reconstruction. Police had more success when Noye and Reader were subsequently prosecuted for conspiracy to handle stolen goods. Two years following his release in 1994, Noye became even more notorious for stabbing a young man named Stephen Cameron in a "road rage" incident at the Swanley interchange of the M25, after which with Palmer's help he fled the country for an obscure corner of Spain. Police didn't want Noye to be aware that he had been identified as the suspect, but "someone in the know sold the information that Noye was wanted for the murder of Stephen Cameron to a tabloid newspaper. Although it was obvious that doing so would jeopardize the chances of catching him, the newspaper went ahead and named Noye." This hints at another strand of corruption in British public life during this period - links between police officers and tabloid journalists that came to light during the "phone-hacking" saga. Eventually tracked down with the help of GCHQ, Noye was formally identified by Cameron's young fiancée Danielle Cable, who gave evidence at the trial. Her involvement meant that she then had to enter a witness protection scheme, which Pearson evokes hauntingly: From this moment on, Cable would have to live out her days in the bleak and soulless desert of the witness protection programme... Over the next few days and weeks, Cable changed her identity, her appearance, her habits, the way she dressed, her hobbies, her reading matter, and just about everything else. Allowed very little contact with her immediate family, and none with her former friends, even her authorized telephone calls were kept to the barest minimum.Noye once again attempted a self-defence argument, but this time the jury wasn't having it and at the time of the book's writing he was in a high-security prison, subject to a regime of randomly changing prison guards to thwart the possibility of guards being "turned". Another prosecution witness, Alan Decabral, was shot dead in Ashford a few months after giving evidence, although the case remains unsolved (and it seems he had also had other enemies). The twists and turns of the financial narrative are dense in places, but Pearson’s account is vivid, with flashes of dry humour. Orion can be a bit slapdash (there's a glaring typo on the very first page), but the book does have a very detailed index that helps with following some of the narrative threads. Gordon Parry was arrested after fleeing to Spain and convicted in 1992; Michael Relton, like Anthony Black, crumbled under police pressure and made a confession. Brian Perry also went to prison, where he apparently convinced McAvoy that he hadn’t purloined “his” money after all, but after his release he was shot to death in an unsolved crime in 2001. ...more |
|
|
Richard Bartholomew
rated a book really liked it
|
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
|
In 1814, the French statesman Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord was the natural choice to represent the defeated French Empire at the Congress of Vienna; however, in a context where "the salon, the ballroom… were an essential complement to the c
In 1814, the French statesman Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord was the natural choice to represent the defeated French Empire at the Congress of Vienna; however, in a context where "the salon, the ballroom… were an essential complement to the conference table", there was a problem: there was no prospect that his wife Catherine Grand – a mistress whom he had married only reluctantly – would rise to the occasion as a competent hostess. Fortunately, however, he had a more than capable substitute to hand: Dorothea, Princess of Courland, a young Germanic noblewoman whose marriage to his nephew Edmond he had arranged a few years before:Dorothea de Périgord was as well equipped for the work as Princess Talleyrand would have been incompetent. In intelligence she was not put to shame by any of the statesmen who were to surround her; in beauty she could stand comparison with any other flower of the European aristocracy ; by birth she was entitled to a place of honour in even the most exclusive drawing-rooms of Vienna. All she lacked was the sophistication that comes from experience and an exhaustive training in high society and even this was to prove an advantage; after an evening of hard-boiled brilliance with Princess Bagration or Countess Zichy it was a relief to turn to the innocence and comparative simplicity of this girl of just twenty-one.Further: …The royal house of Prussia were her childhood friends, the Emperor of Russia an old ally of her mother's. Her three sisters were all at Vienna and strategically placed for the provision of information: Wilhelmina, Duchess of Sagan, was jostling for the position of mistress to Prince Metternich; Pauline, Princess of Hohenzollern-Hechingen had a husband among the ruling princes and a lover among the leading negotiators and Jeanne, Duchess of Acerenza was formally mistress of a Dutchman but still found time for a spirited flirtation with Frederick Gentz, Secretary General to the Congress and an infallible source of well-informed gossip.Dorothea had already shown her mettle as a lady-in-waiting to the Empress Marie Louise, when she had reacted spiritedly – albeit also tearfully – when Napoleon had directed some irritable criticisms of her husband and uncle in her direction. The emperor, perhaps ashamed of his outburst or impressed by a girl's quick-witted defiance, made amends by inviting her to sit at his table the next day. Edmond pointedly was not invited by his uncle to Vienna, and from that time on Dorothea was an essential part of Talleyrand's work, including during his stint in London as ambassador. Louis XVIII rewarded Talleyrand for his efforts in Vienna with the title duke of Dino (a tiny islet off the coast of Itay), but as he was already Prince Talleyrand he passed the honour along to Edmond, which in turn made Dorothea duchess of Dino. Although later in life she inherited the titles duchess of Talleyrand and then duchess of Sagan, "it was as the Duchess of Dino that she was above all to be remembered and to figure in countless anecdotes and memoirs". There was nothing weird about Tallyrand arriving in Vienna with a German woman whose original title referred to family land in Lithuania; the Congress, Ziegler explains, was the last fling of the cosmopolitan aristocracy before it succumbed to the bourgeois prejudices of nationalism. When the host himself was an Austrian Emperor, Italian by birth and speaking French by preference, how could the guests be conscious of their races? National aims were one thing but personal nationalities quite another; the Russians set a good example by having in their delegation three Germans, one Pole, one Greek, one Frenchman . . . and one Russian.Dorothea, judges Zeigler could have "made a formidable soldier, ambassador or politician", had her sex not forced her into a supporting role. Despite having been tutored by the Abbé Scipione Piattoli, Dorothea seems in the younger days to have been religiously indifferent; she converted to Roman Catholicism only as part of her "integration in French society", and she regarded the faith in utilitarian terms as the "most useful to society in general". However, a reactionary notion of "godly order" became increasingly important to her as she aged, and there is a particularly suspenseful account her involvement in Talleyrand's deathbed reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church – the obstacle of his marriage, which the Church had found objectionable due to his earlier career as a bishop, had by this time resolved itself through Catherine's death, but he still needed to sign a retraction of "errors". A draft document was amended by the archbishop of Paris, Hyacinthe-Louis de Quélen, and after having it read to him Talleyrand procrastinated dangerously before signing just before his death. However, despite this concern for religious propriety, Dorothea had enemies who regarded her as "immoral". Ziegler dismisses various claims as malicious gossip, but was he too identified with his subject's interest? Concerning her relationship with the Greek-French diplomat Théobald Piscatory in the 1820s, Ziegler writes: There were many wild stories abroad, according to one of which Piscatory was supposed to have fathered a child whom, it was alleged, Dorothea had cunningly contrived to bear without being detected and to dispose of with equal dexterity and mystery'.Compare this with Emmanuel de Waresquiel's 2003 biography of Talleyrand: Des enfants naissent de ces amours, toujours très discrètement : le 23 janvier 1826, à Hyères, une petite Julie-Zulmé dont on ne sait pas très bien qui en est le père, le 10 septembre 1827, à Bordeaux, une autre Antonine-Pélagie qui est cette fois probablement de Piscatory. Dorothée ne les reconnaît pas plus qu'elle n'avait reconnu Marie-Henriette Dessalles, née de sa passion pour [Count Clam-Martinitz].Perhaps here rumours have slowly solidified into facts through mere repetition, but it is odd that the two individuals named her as her natural children (and who are today listed as her offspring on standard genealogy websites) aren't even referenced by Ziegler. Parisian society meanwhile took it for granted that Dorothea, like her own mother before her, was her uncle-in-law's mistress, and Ziegler writes that is "reasonable" to think that Talleyrand fathered her youngest (acknowledged?) daughter Pauline. Ziegler here though indulges an instinct for sentimental commentary: "It is not agreeable to conceive this young and beautiful girl, mother of two small children, acting as mistress to her sixty-six year old uncle, himself crippled and of unsavoury reputation." Talleyrand was appointed ambassador to the United Kingdom in 1830, representing the July Monarchy in the country where Louis-Phillipe's usurped predecessor Charles X was living in exile, although fortunately some distance away from London at Holyrood. Ziegler describes Dorothea's role as "that of a glorified public relations officer", but adds that it "called for the highest possible degree of charm, patience, wit, pertinacity, perception and sheer, grinding hard work." After 18 months they took rooms in Hanover Square recently vacated by Lord Grey, who told her that the house was haunted by the ghost of a man who had blown on the face of his daughter. During this period Dorothea also began a feuding rivalry with the Countess of Flahaut, the former Meg Elphinstone ("at one time seriously tipped as a future Lady Byron"); the countess had wanted her own French husband Auguste to the ambassador (ironically, Talleyrand's own natural but unacknowledged son). She also corresponded with Lady Holland, and her travels took her to Eridge Castle and Knole, where she appreciated the melancholy aspects of both locations; "Dorothea, one feels, could have paid an enjoyable visit to Northanger Abbey" is a typically leisurely and conversational aside that pads out the story. Ziegler's study – his debut book – is for the most part based on printed sources; Ziegler writes that many of Dorothea's papers were lost during World War II, although one wonders what new archival material might have become available in the more than sixty years since the book's publication, especially in eastern Europe. A publishing house that was not run by his father-in-law William Collins might perhaps have imposed a rather more disciplined approach to the text, but the prose is fluent and Ziegler's almost novelistic imaginative freedoms are appropriate to the narrative needs of popular biography. ...more |
|
Comments (showing 1-1)
post a comment »
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Trane
Aug 22, 2008 03:47AM
Nice to see that you're still using that photo from dinner in Minoh!
reply
|
flag



















