What do you think?
Rate this book
Behind the Palace Doors: Five Centuries of Sex, Adventure, Vice, Treachery, and Folly from Royal Britain
Spanning 500 years of British history, a revealing look at the secret lives of some great (and not-so-great) Britons, courtesy of one of the world’s most engaging royal historians Beleaguered by scandal, betrayed by faithless spouses, bedeviled by ambitious children, the kings and queens of Great Britain have been many things, but they have never been dull. Some sacrificed everything for love, while others met a cruel fate at the edge of an axman’s blade. From the truth behind the supposed madness of King George to Queen Victoria’s surprisingly daring taste in sculpture, Behind the Palace Doors ventures beyond the rumors to tell the unvarnished history of Britain’s monarchs, highlighting the unique mix of tragedy, comedy, romance, heroism, and incompetence that has made the British throne a seat of such unparalleled fascination. • stories covering every monarch, from randy Henry VIII to reserved Elizabeth II • historical myths debunked and surprising “Did you know . . . ?” anecdotes • four family trees spanning every royal house, from the Tudors to the WindsorsFrom the Trade Paperback edition.
322 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
209 people are currently reading
1598 people want to read
About the author
Michael Farquhar
22 books221 followersMichael Farquhar, a former writer and editor at The Washington Post, is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the critically acclaimed Behind the Palace Doors and Secret Lives of the Tsars, as well as the popular Penguin "Treasury" series: A Treasury of Royal Scandals, A Treasury of Great American Scandals, A Treasury of Deception, and A Treasury of Foolishly Forgotten Americans. He lives in Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 186 reviews
October 9, 2017
There's nothing wrong with Michael Farquhar's new book "Behind the Palace Doors" that a tweaking of writing style might not fix. He has carefully chosen British rulers since the Tudors' reigns and presented them from a "personal" angle. The historical facts are true as are the effects of the facts on history, but somehow Farquhar's writing makes the Kings, Queens, and others highlighted in his book seem as if they sprung from the pages of the "Globe" or "The National Enquirer".
Now, as a history-jock, I'll take my history in almost any form but I do appreciate good writing. Nothing is worse than a deadly-dull writer dealing with material, that in those very deadly-dull hands has emerged on the written page with as much "oomph" as a dead flounder. Michael Farquhar's writing is too much the other way.
One of the good points about Farquhar's book is that he chooses people and incidents to highlight that have remained hidden - for the most part - in other popular histories. I did learn from Farquhar's book - which really is the point of the book having been written in the first place - I just wish it had just been presented in a more toned-down form.
Now, as a history-jock, I'll take my history in almost any form but I do appreciate good writing. Nothing is worse than a deadly-dull writer dealing with material, that in those very deadly-dull hands has emerged on the written page with as much "oomph" as a dead flounder. Michael Farquhar's writing is too much the other way.
One of the good points about Farquhar's book is that he chooses people and incidents to highlight that have remained hidden - for the most part - in other popular histories. I did learn from Farquhar's book - which really is the point of the book having been written in the first place - I just wish it had just been presented in a more toned-down form.
May 2, 2014
1 ½ stars
The cover leads you believe that this will be a fun, humorous book. Another case of false advertising… IT IS NOT. It is pretty much straight history, and it reads like Cliff’s Notes.
I think this book would be rather confusing to the neophyte. It bounces around a bit, and is so very incomplete. Luckily, I have read extensively about English history, and was able to "fill in the gaps" where necessary.
I was disappointed to learn nothing new from this book.
Not recommended
The cover leads you believe that this will be a fun, humorous book. Another case of false advertising… IT IS NOT. It is pretty much straight history, and it reads like Cliff’s Notes.
I think this book would be rather confusing to the neophyte. It bounces around a bit, and is so very incomplete. Luckily, I have read extensively about English history, and was able to "fill in the gaps" where necessary.
I was disappointed to learn nothing new from this book.
Not recommended
October 14, 2011
This book cracked me up, mostly because it is from my friend who is a royalty FIEND. And I don't mean loving modern royalty and their fashion sense. She loves Henry VIII and all his wives. She's loved them since childhood which I think is just so funny. What would you do if your little girl just wanted to read about British monarchs of the past?
She grew up just fine though, and gave me this book. It's pretty entertaining, I must admit. It goes through 500 years of the British monarchy and gives you a chapter on each king or queen. They sure weren't a very classy group of people. It was interesting to read how they are all connected and understand (albeit briefly, I'm sure I'll forget) the connections between the past and present.
So it was a good read, and certainly more entertaining than most non-fiction I read. But, unlike most non-fiction I read, I don't exactly feel better for having read it. I'd always imagined the King James (of the King James Bible translation) as a noble figure. Not so much, it turns out.
She grew up just fine though, and gave me this book. It's pretty entertaining, I must admit. It goes through 500 years of the British monarchy and gives you a chapter on each king or queen. They sure weren't a very classy group of people. It was interesting to read how they are all connected and understand (albeit briefly, I'm sure I'll forget) the connections between the past and present.
So it was a good read, and certainly more entertaining than most non-fiction I read. But, unlike most non-fiction I read, I don't exactly feel better for having read it. I'd always imagined the King James (of the King James Bible translation) as a noble figure. Not so much, it turns out.
February 15, 2019
Starts with the Tudors and ends with a quick summary of Elizabeth II. I found the first several chapters boring simply because I already knew it all and didn't learn anything new or interesting. However, once we started on the Stuarts I found it more interesting simply because I had less knowledge.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend the audiobook version of this, as the narrator a) had 1 gruff voice for every man he quoted and b) did ATROCIOUS accents - everything from Italian to French to German to Russian to really really bad American. It was annoying, distracting, and totally ineffective.
Overall, a decent quick history of several hundred years of British royalty, with some interesting side stories, but nothing deep or surprising in any of it.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend the audiobook version of this, as the narrator a) had 1 gruff voice for every man he quoted and b) did ATROCIOUS accents - everything from Italian to French to German to Russian to really really bad American. It was annoying, distracting, and totally ineffective.
Overall, a decent quick history of several hundred years of British royalty, with some interesting side stories, but nothing deep or surprising in any of it.
February 12, 2018
This is a fairly mediocre tour through random pieces of the private lives of British royalty from Henry VIII to Elizabeth II. It’s a quick and easy bit of popular history.
April 6, 2011
I've read many of Michael Farquhar's books. Generally I like them. They are fun little vignettes of history and usually amusing.
This wasn't fun or amusing.
It was a brief summary of the reigns, not vignettes. If he had taken the time to just find interesting stories about everyone, it would have been a good read. Instead, it was tedious and a waste of time.
Now I admit, part of the problem was that I know too much about these kings/queens...so I had heard it all before. Honestly though, I know a lot of history and I enjoyed his other books. So as much as I think knowing the history diminished my enjoyment, I don't think it negates my criticism. He veered from his own path and rather than "hey did you know this" style of writing, it's a poorly written book report on the Tudor/Stuart/Hanoverian/SaxeCoburg/Windsor royalty.
Skip it...unless of course you have nothing else to do.
This wasn't fun or amusing.
It was a brief summary of the reigns, not vignettes. If he had taken the time to just find interesting stories about everyone, it would have been a good read. Instead, it was tedious and a waste of time.
Now I admit, part of the problem was that I know too much about these kings/queens...so I had heard it all before. Honestly though, I know a lot of history and I enjoyed his other books. So as much as I think knowing the history diminished my enjoyment, I don't think it negates my criticism. He veered from his own path and rather than "hey did you know this" style of writing, it's a poorly written book report on the Tudor/Stuart/Hanoverian/SaxeCoburg/Windsor royalty.
Skip it...unless of course you have nothing else to do.
August 26, 2015
Totally enjoyable, a work of non-fiction that read like fiction. Great tantalizing gossip - but factual! One of my favorite revelations-- Charles II's six sons had produced 56 illegitimate royal heirs by the time of Charles II's death. Also of interest to me - the background of Edward VIII(?) abdication tho he had never been crowned - and delighted to see recognition of George VI rising to the occasion. A great review of the history I once may have studied and some I read fictional versions of in novels. Biggest impact was my total bewilderment as to how the monarchy survived in Britain all those years - all the inbreeding, insanity, infidelity, intermarriage with Royals in Europe - and survives to this day, though the royal family since George VI appears to have functioned quite well - or at least on the surface.
Now must read Antonia Fraser's non-fiction work about Charles II!
Now must read Antonia Fraser's non-fiction work about Charles II!
January 23, 2020
Behind the Palace Doors: Five Centuries of Sex, Adventure, Vice, Treachery, and Folly from Royal Britain
Author: Michael Farquhar
Publisher: Random House
Publishing Date: 2011
Pgs: 307
Dewey: 941.0099 FAR
Disposition: Interlibrary Loan via San Antonio PUblic Library, San Antonio, TX
: Hoopla Audiobook
_________________________________________________
REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
Summary:
500 years of royalty. Scandal. Faithlessness. Ambition. Incest. Sacrifice. Execution. History in it’s unvarnished, ugliness, and glory. From the Tudors to the Windsors.
_________________________________________________
Genre:
Biography
History
Royalty
Great Britain
Why this book:
I’m on a palace intrigue kick lately.
_________________________________________________
Least Favorite Character:
So...8-year old Edward VI telling his stepmother that his sister, 20 years his senior, shouldn’t attend dances. The text refers to him as a prig. I would use another term also starting with p and rhyming with rick.
The Georges(I, II, and III).
Favorite Scene / Quote/Concept:
James II had a penchant for “ugly” mistresses. One so called “” mistress, Catherine Sedley said, “It cannot be my beauty for he must see that I have none. And it cannot be my wit, for he has not enough to know that I have any.”
Hmm Moments:
Lord Admiral Thomas Seymour, uncle of Charles VI, brother of the Duke of Somerset, brother of one of King Henry VIII’s wives, Jane Seymour, could have survived his perfides...if he hadn’t shot the boy King’s dog.
George II was anal and overly regimented. He effectively scheduled his entire life.
George V of England, Nicholas II of Russia, and Wilhelm II of Germany: we're all cousins. So a big piece world war 1 was a family feud. Though they didn’t trigger it, they all certainly had a piece in it’s propagation.
The crown within Bonnie Prince Charlie’s reach and he was done in by the promise of French reinforcements. The clan leaders forced him back when victory was, if not in reach, was definitely in play. And then, the French backed out. His retreat to retrench gave the Hannoverian forces heart and time to mount a comeback. The Bonnie Prince Charlie revolt snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
So the Danes played chicken with King George III as he girded for war over his sister. Divorced fine, but he didn’t want her killed. Her lover who threw her under the bus died a barbaric deather: he was beheaded, had his hand struck off, and his head put on a pole. The danes went big on royal executions. They created a lifetime enemy in Caroline Mathilda, a vengeful enemy with the Blood Royal. Before she succumbed to Scarlet Fever...or was she poisoned to keep her from rising up against the cabal that drover her and her lover from power in Denmark? Her son, Frederick VII of Denmark removed the plotters when he took the reins of power. And Caroline’s daughter married her cousin King Christian VIII, the grandson of the Dowager Queen, Christian VII’s mother, who overthrew Caroline and her lover in the first place.
WTF Moments:
Mary, Queen of Scots, husband Francis II of France died of an ear infection that abscessed into his brain… … ...what?
William III and Mary II of Orange were manipulated into the invasion and overthrow of her father James II. They did it. But didn’t seem to want to do it. Though if they had left it to Anne and whatever machinations she got up to England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland would have suffered more, I fear.
Victoria expected things from Edward but blaming him for Albert's death, even though Albert died of typhoid, because he had a shocking affair with a woman not approved. She held him at arm's length, didn't train him, didn't show him the ropes, and then got mad when she left him to his own devices and he used those devices. Favoring the other children, Leopold, et al, who weren't going to be king drove a further wedge between mother and son.
Meh / PFFT Moments:
And the rise of Cromwell. Reading about Cromwell in America’s current political climate is apropos.
James II bending his knee to a Papal Nuncio reinforced fears that he intended to destroy the Anglican Church and return Catholicism to English life.
The Sigh:
Arbella was either driven mad by her confinement or was always so.
The Opera War between George II and his son Frederick was stupid. But par for the course. Frederick ended up predeceasing his father leading the crown to fall to his son, George III.
I just don’t understand the Hannoverians...all these royals really. They created opposition through their treatment of their heirs.
Wisdom:
Well...Bloody Mary was a Holy Terror. Sometimes a name does fit.
Of course, the problems with Edward VI and Bloody Mary were all Henry VIII’s fault. That kind of example, leadership, and parenting, the results weren’t going to be good.
Juxtaposition:
Charles II’s cavorting with mistresses openly would have caused Cromwell’s head to explode if it had not already been separated from his body. Though Cromwell was dug up, chained, and beheaded posthumously.
Anne, daughter of James II and provocateur, was horrible to her half brother James Francis Edward Stuart. She continually called into question his legitimacy. This lead through the consequence of her actions to the Jacobite succession in exile and all the troubles that came with it.
The whole balance of James II’s life was plot and counterplot after having lost his crown to William and Mary, his daughter, of Orange. Funny that Mary II lamented so much after overthrowing her father. She double standarded her father’s behavior, along with her sister Anne, rather than her, her husband’s, and her sister’s.
Mary II and Anne were opposed significantly as their life travels brought them closer and closer to the seat of royal power.
While William III was away fighting James II in France, Mary faced plots by Jacobite loyalists, republicans, and at least one which gathered around Anne.
The Unexpected:
James II bad efforts to regain the crown, falling and failing. This lead the Irish to refer to him as James the Shit. Wow! ...just wow.
The Georges(I, II, and III) all hated each other. Though the lecherous bastards did all share a mistress. Must’ve been one hell of a woman. The Georges were all pricks.
All the first cousin inbreeding, it’s surprising that there weren’t more dolts, nuts, and invalids on the thrones of Europe.
Christian VII of Denmark married George III’s sister Caroline. But what Christian was into was prostitutes, masturbating excessively, breaking things, and being tied to a chair and whipped. He hated being King. Wow...just wow.
I never knew that the Provisional Russian Government before Soviet takeover had offered the English to take the Romanovs into exile. And that George V said no, effectively cutting off his cousin’s only hope of escape. George was playing politics at the time, changing the name of the family from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor to more closely tie the family to England as the German wing of the family girded for war. George V snubbed his cousin, leaving he and his family to die at the hands of the Soviets.
So...Edward VIII was a submissive in the sexual sense of the word. With all the whoring, mistress taking, illegitimate children, and cousin loving going on, I wonder if this would have caused condescension or not if it were widely known back then. Course, Edward did his share of those things as well...well the whoring and mistress taking anyway.
_________________________________________________
Last Page Sound:
These families are messed up.
Questions I’m Left With:
Was Henry VIII complicit in the death of his brother Arthur?
Were all these people really this horrible or were they just people, cripplingly inbred, but still people.
Conclusions I’ve Drawn:
Audiobooks...I read faster than most narrators.
Author Assessment:
Well done.
_________________________________________________
Author: Michael Farquhar
Publisher: Random House
Publishing Date: 2011
Pgs: 307
Dewey: 941.0099 FAR
Disposition: Interlibrary Loan via San Antonio PUblic Library, San Antonio, TX
: Hoopla Audiobook
_________________________________________________
REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
Summary:
500 years of royalty. Scandal. Faithlessness. Ambition. Incest. Sacrifice. Execution. History in it’s unvarnished, ugliness, and glory. From the Tudors to the Windsors.
_________________________________________________
Genre:
Biography
History
Royalty
Great Britain
Why this book:
I’m on a palace intrigue kick lately.
_________________________________________________
Least Favorite Character:
So...8-year old Edward VI telling his stepmother that his sister, 20 years his senior, shouldn’t attend dances. The text refers to him as a prig. I would use another term also starting with p and rhyming with rick.
The Georges(I, II, and III).
Favorite Scene / Quote/Concept:
James II had a penchant for “ugly” mistresses. One so called “” mistress, Catherine Sedley said, “It cannot be my beauty for he must see that I have none. And it cannot be my wit, for he has not enough to know that I have any.”
Hmm Moments:
Lord Admiral Thomas Seymour, uncle of Charles VI, brother of the Duke of Somerset, brother of one of King Henry VIII’s wives, Jane Seymour, could have survived his perfides...if he hadn’t shot the boy King’s dog.
George II was anal and overly regimented. He effectively scheduled his entire life.
George V of England, Nicholas II of Russia, and Wilhelm II of Germany: we're all cousins. So a big piece world war 1 was a family feud. Though they didn’t trigger it, they all certainly had a piece in it’s propagation.
The crown within Bonnie Prince Charlie’s reach and he was done in by the promise of French reinforcements. The clan leaders forced him back when victory was, if not in reach, was definitely in play. And then, the French backed out. His retreat to retrench gave the Hannoverian forces heart and time to mount a comeback. The Bonnie Prince Charlie revolt snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
So the Danes played chicken with King George III as he girded for war over his sister. Divorced fine, but he didn’t want her killed. Her lover who threw her under the bus died a barbaric deather: he was beheaded, had his hand struck off, and his head put on a pole. The danes went big on royal executions. They created a lifetime enemy in Caroline Mathilda, a vengeful enemy with the Blood Royal. Before she succumbed to Scarlet Fever...or was she poisoned to keep her from rising up against the cabal that drover her and her lover from power in Denmark? Her son, Frederick VII of Denmark removed the plotters when he took the reins of power. And Caroline’s daughter married her cousin King Christian VIII, the grandson of the Dowager Queen, Christian VII’s mother, who overthrew Caroline and her lover in the first place.
WTF Moments:
Mary, Queen of Scots, husband Francis II of France died of an ear infection that abscessed into his brain… … ...what?
William III and Mary II of Orange were manipulated into the invasion and overthrow of her father James II. They did it. But didn’t seem to want to do it. Though if they had left it to Anne and whatever machinations she got up to England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland would have suffered more, I fear.
Victoria expected things from Edward but blaming him for Albert's death, even though Albert died of typhoid, because he had a shocking affair with a woman not approved. She held him at arm's length, didn't train him, didn't show him the ropes, and then got mad when she left him to his own devices and he used those devices. Favoring the other children, Leopold, et al, who weren't going to be king drove a further wedge between mother and son.
Meh / PFFT Moments:
And the rise of Cromwell. Reading about Cromwell in America’s current political climate is apropos.
James II bending his knee to a Papal Nuncio reinforced fears that he intended to destroy the Anglican Church and return Catholicism to English life.
The Sigh:
Arbella was either driven mad by her confinement or was always so.
The Opera War between George II and his son Frederick was stupid. But par for the course. Frederick ended up predeceasing his father leading the crown to fall to his son, George III.
I just don’t understand the Hannoverians...all these royals really. They created opposition through their treatment of their heirs.
Wisdom:
Well...Bloody Mary was a Holy Terror. Sometimes a name does fit.
Of course, the problems with Edward VI and Bloody Mary were all Henry VIII’s fault. That kind of example, leadership, and parenting, the results weren’t going to be good.
Juxtaposition:
Charles II’s cavorting with mistresses openly would have caused Cromwell’s head to explode if it had not already been separated from his body. Though Cromwell was dug up, chained, and beheaded posthumously.
Anne, daughter of James II and provocateur, was horrible to her half brother James Francis Edward Stuart. She continually called into question his legitimacy. This lead through the consequence of her actions to the Jacobite succession in exile and all the troubles that came with it.
The whole balance of James II’s life was plot and counterplot after having lost his crown to William and Mary, his daughter, of Orange. Funny that Mary II lamented so much after overthrowing her father. She double standarded her father’s behavior, along with her sister Anne, rather than her, her husband’s, and her sister’s.
Mary II and Anne were opposed significantly as their life travels brought them closer and closer to the seat of royal power.
While William III was away fighting James II in France, Mary faced plots by Jacobite loyalists, republicans, and at least one which gathered around Anne.
The Unexpected:
James II bad efforts to regain the crown, falling and failing. This lead the Irish to refer to him as James the Shit. Wow! ...just wow.
The Georges(I, II, and III) all hated each other. Though the lecherous bastards did all share a mistress. Must’ve been one hell of a woman. The Georges were all pricks.
All the first cousin inbreeding, it’s surprising that there weren’t more dolts, nuts, and invalids on the thrones of Europe.
Christian VII of Denmark married George III’s sister Caroline. But what Christian was into was prostitutes, masturbating excessively, breaking things, and being tied to a chair and whipped. He hated being King. Wow...just wow.
I never knew that the Provisional Russian Government before Soviet takeover had offered the English to take the Romanovs into exile. And that George V said no, effectively cutting off his cousin’s only hope of escape. George was playing politics at the time, changing the name of the family from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor to more closely tie the family to England as the German wing of the family girded for war. George V snubbed his cousin, leaving he and his family to die at the hands of the Soviets.
So...Edward VIII was a submissive in the sexual sense of the word. With all the whoring, mistress taking, illegitimate children, and cousin loving going on, I wonder if this would have caused condescension or not if it were widely known back then. Course, Edward did his share of those things as well...well the whoring and mistress taking anyway.
_________________________________________________
Last Page Sound:
These families are messed up.
Questions I’m Left With:
Was Henry VIII complicit in the death of his brother Arthur?
Were all these people really this horrible or were they just people, cripplingly inbred, but still people.
Conclusions I’ve Drawn:
Audiobooks...I read faster than most narrators.
Author Assessment:
Well done.
_________________________________________________
December 27, 2013
What makes this book so great? Hm...it's got sex, adventure, vice, treachery and folly in the title. What's not to love?
No seriously, it's a nice reminder that what you read in the history books is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to some of these monarchs. Some of it treads upon familiar ground (e.g. the Tudor dynasty) while some were perhaps more surprising as it seemed "new" (e.g. than Hanover dynasty). Chapters on individual monarchs were brief and the sections read more like an extended version of a National Enquirer article. Good read if you are looking for something paparazzi-like that is actually based on history.
No seriously, it's a nice reminder that what you read in the history books is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to some of these monarchs. Some of it treads upon familiar ground (e.g. the Tudor dynasty) while some were perhaps more surprising as it seemed "new" (e.g. than Hanover dynasty). Chapters on individual monarchs were brief and the sections read more like an extended version of a National Enquirer article. Good read if you are looking for something paparazzi-like that is actually based on history.
May 10, 2011
There were some chapters which were more interesting than others. If you're looking to read about the current monarch, this book won't tickle your fancy. But for what it is- 5 centuries of royal scandals- it's a really fun read. If not for the fact that these were real people, born into the public eye, you'd think it was the script for a juicy soap opera. If you're interested in the history of the monarch, this does include some family trees, which are helpful given all the repeated names (George and Elizabeth come to mind). This book really is all about the scandals, more than the monarch. Happily ever after, this book is not.
August 11, 2013
Interesting summary of the monarchy from the more famous times to the present. I assume it's all based on facts that have been verified or it wouldn't be non-fiction. There were some things about the monarchy I really didn't want to know. The book was simplistic in some places and in others the quotes and tidbits of history were compelling. Overall, I enjoyed it, but not as much as I would have hoped.
August 8, 2016
One of my go to history authors. Farquhar while giving you the basics of behind the various royal houses of Great Britain, also throws out some little known to the general public facts. Things you wouldn't normally know about without getting into some in-depth research. I highly recommend all of his books.
March 9, 2015
Very nicely written; I finally understood all this stuff.
Wonderful little history book, great humor—not too heavy-handed.
Good read. Definitely recommend.
********
I just read this again, and retain the very same opinion as before. Love it:
not too much, just enough.
If I could rate it again, I would.
Wonderful little history book, great humor—not too heavy-handed.
Good read. Definitely recommend.
********
I just read this again, and retain the very same opinion as before. Love it:
not too much, just enough.
If I could rate it again, I would.
December 13, 2014
This book was diappointing. It told me nothing new or fresh (to me anyway). I thought it would be fun, but I was wrong. I don't think you would enjoy this book unless you didn't know anything about The British Monarchy.
March 14, 2022
This wasn’t quite what I was expecting. I thought that it would be a more humorous take on English royal history, but it’s actually a straight timeline of events. It is well written and researched though. It’s history in bite size pieces.
March 22, 2014
Another fun listen on my short 10 minute commute.Something about the foibles of historical figures makes the trek over icy roads more enjoyable.
March 2, 2015
Cleverly written and concisely put together, this book is a must-have for English Monarchy history newbies like myself.
September 14, 2014
A super-fun pop history book. I enjoy history, but don't have the stamina for the more exhaustive chronicles - this was a perfect light read.
September 24, 2020
Mr. Farquhar has a way of writing history in a very entertaining way. Very funny book. this really cracked me up. take my word for it.
January 28, 2022
It was good, but I need to reread it when I can focus more
August 20, 2023
An interesting read full of entertaining facts about many different British royals. Its amazing what they were allowed to do, and how insane some of their actions were.
July 10, 2019
Michael Farquhar appears to have made something of a cottage industry by chronicling the dirty laundry of the rich, famous, and powerful, and Behind the Palace Doors: Five Centuries of Sex, Adventure, Vice, Treachery, and Folly from Royal Britain falls directly within that category as well. Detailing the bad behavior surrounding the Tudor, Stuart, Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Windsor royal families—and within the actual kings' and queens' own lives as well—Behind the Palace Doors is both a breezy read and actually informative. Having disposed of monarchy close to 250 years ago (duh), Americans may not always be familiar with what being the king or queen of our parent nation is really like (even if we do tend to follow the goings-on of the current British Royal Family to a possibly unhealthy extent), and to a great extent this book actually tells them what it's like; I know that I, personally, was wholly unaware of how tenuous several claims to the throne were for centuries. (To that effect, I now genuinely understand the climax of the "classic" John Goodman movie King Ralph!)
Likewise, the current residents of Buckingham Palace seem to be so iconic, for lack of better terminology, that I at least don't always remember that they're actually people, with their own personalities, approaches to their jobs, and so forth; Behind the Palace Doors likewise makes clear that being a King or Queen of Great Britain is, in fact, a job—as well as how difficult that job must actually be. And Farquhar's discussion (albeit brief) of Elizabeth II in the last section of the book makes equally clear that her fluctuating relationship with the British public is hardly unique to her; Behind the Palace Doors amply demonstrates that several, if not most, English and/or British monarchs' popularity with their subjects has fluctuated wildly for centuries. And while Farquhar wrote Behind the Palace Doors even before Elizabeth's grandchildren and Prince Charles' children got married, the implication is how liberalized the monarchy has become in recent years; after all, rarely, if ever, before have royals close in line to the throne really been able to marry whom they truly loved—and it took Charles' second marriage for that to happen, notwithstanding.
Behind the Palace Doors is a fun book, with a bibliography that provides sources for further reading. Some years ago I began Karl Shaw's Royal Babylon, which treads similar ground, but Farquhar's tone is much more respectful, as compared with Shaw's arguably gossipy and Schadenfreude-y approach; Farquhar doesn't miss the opportunity to criticize monarchs and their family members who behave (often very, very) badly, but he approaches the subjects as human beings, rather than as objects to gawk at. In that regard, Behind the Palace Doors does an excellent job at humanizing its often larger-than-life subjects.
Likewise, the current residents of Buckingham Palace seem to be so iconic, for lack of better terminology, that I at least don't always remember that they're actually people, with their own personalities, approaches to their jobs, and so forth; Behind the Palace Doors likewise makes clear that being a King or Queen of Great Britain is, in fact, a job—as well as how difficult that job must actually be. And Farquhar's discussion (albeit brief) of Elizabeth II in the last section of the book makes equally clear that her fluctuating relationship with the British public is hardly unique to her; Behind the Palace Doors amply demonstrates that several, if not most, English and/or British monarchs' popularity with their subjects has fluctuated wildly for centuries. And while Farquhar wrote Behind the Palace Doors even before Elizabeth's grandchildren and Prince Charles' children got married, the implication is how liberalized the monarchy has become in recent years; after all, rarely, if ever, before have royals close in line to the throne really been able to marry whom they truly loved—and it took Charles' second marriage for that to happen, notwithstanding.
Behind the Palace Doors is a fun book, with a bibliography that provides sources for further reading. Some years ago I began Karl Shaw's Royal Babylon, which treads similar ground, but Farquhar's tone is much more respectful, as compared with Shaw's arguably gossipy and Schadenfreude-y approach; Farquhar doesn't miss the opportunity to criticize monarchs and their family members who behave (often very, very) badly, but he approaches the subjects as human beings, rather than as objects to gawk at. In that regard, Behind the Palace Doors does an excellent job at humanizing its often larger-than-life subjects.
January 22, 2021
Early on, this litany of the British Royal family's myriad of missteps, craziness, and/or despotic behavior seems rather superficial. The author tends to zero in on the ghoulish (it took more than one whack of the ax to kill Mary Queen of Scots, etc.). The fact that King James I was a homosexual (and also the writer of the King James Version of the Bible) was a shock.
The 18 pregnancies of Anne of Stuart were surprising; particularly when only one survived childhood, but died before he could rise to kingship (aged 11). Thus, the Stuart line was finished and the Hanoverians rose to the British crown; they were descended in the female line from James VI and I.
George I was the first Hanoverian king; he became king over England when he was about 56. George I became king under the Act of Settlement of 1701. There were some 50 Roman Catholic relatives with stronger claims but England wanted a Protestant king. George II was the last foreign-born monarch to rule over the British isles. The Hanoverians were noted for being royals who hated their heirs.
Today, I found out who Jacobites were. Jacobitism was a mostly 17th- and 18th-century movement that supported the restoration of the House of Stuart to the British throne. The name is derived from Jacobus, the Latin version of James. The author tells a rousing story of Bonnie Prince Charlie (Stuart) and the Jacobites.
George V and Tsar Nicholas were first cousins (as was also Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and Prussia). I found photos of George and Nicholas and they are stunningly alike, especially in earlier years (just as this book states). I was shocked to hear that George, who was so close to Nicholas, would revoke the asylum requested for the royal family of Russia when the Bolsheviks took over.
I've read enough of Edward VIII's stupid political leanings (he admired Adolph Hitler) to know that Edward's marrying the oft-divorced Wallis Simpson was the luckiest thing that ever happened to the British people. Edward and Wallis richly deserved each other.
I have to say that the story grew on me. At first, I thought the story was superficial, but by the reign of Queen Anne (Stuart) and then Bonnie Prince Charlie, I thought the story improved immensely.
The 18 pregnancies of Anne of Stuart were surprising; particularly when only one survived childhood, but died before he could rise to kingship (aged 11). Thus, the Stuart line was finished and the Hanoverians rose to the British crown; they were descended in the female line from James VI and I.
George I was the first Hanoverian king; he became king over England when he was about 56. George I became king under the Act of Settlement of 1701. There were some 50 Roman Catholic relatives with stronger claims but England wanted a Protestant king. George II was the last foreign-born monarch to rule over the British isles. The Hanoverians were noted for being royals who hated their heirs.
Today, I found out who Jacobites were. Jacobitism was a mostly 17th- and 18th-century movement that supported the restoration of the House of Stuart to the British throne. The name is derived from Jacobus, the Latin version of James. The author tells a rousing story of Bonnie Prince Charlie (Stuart) and the Jacobites.
George V and Tsar Nicholas were first cousins (as was also Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and Prussia). I found photos of George and Nicholas and they are stunningly alike, especially in earlier years (just as this book states). I was shocked to hear that George, who was so close to Nicholas, would revoke the asylum requested for the royal family of Russia when the Bolsheviks took over.
I've read enough of Edward VIII's stupid political leanings (he admired Adolph Hitler) to know that Edward's marrying the oft-divorced Wallis Simpson was the luckiest thing that ever happened to the British people. Edward and Wallis richly deserved each other.
I have to say that the story grew on me. At first, I thought the story was superficial, but by the reign of Queen Anne (Stuart) and then Bonnie Prince Charlie, I thought the story improved immensely.
May 29, 2021
From the Tudors through the currently reigning Windsors', this is an outrageous look at the English monarchy with many of their foibles, scandals and idiosyncrasies on display.
Thankfully, in the cases of commentary regarding the 'older' monarchs, translations were provided or otherwise, you likely would have no idea what was being referred to. But otherwise, it scans like the latest issue of a celebrity magazine that focuses on the royals. Henry VIII marriages and weight (it took 16 yeomen to carry his coffin). Victoria's gushing about Albert - Albert was the straight-laced prude, not Victoria - got to be very repetitious. I sympathize with those that had to listen to the non-stop effusive affection she held for her husband. The ego of the Duke of Windsor who complained about being governor in the Bahamas and needing more money/allowance while the people of England were suffering under brutal rationing.
And more of the same - a dissecting of - mostly - the negative aspects or situations that the monarchs found themselves in. Is it a historical reference? Certainly gives some insight on aspects many writers might leave out. Is it authentic? Also likely. Is it amusing? In some cases, definitely. And as it is broken up by families and by each monarch, the reader can read a chapter here and there about their favorites without searching from cover to cover if so desired.
I've read several of Mr. Farquhar's books before and they DO always give some tidbits of information that the reader has likely not heard before and always tries to make the subjects entertaining - - especially when dealing with "characters" and "personalities".
2021-107
Thankfully, in the cases of commentary regarding the 'older' monarchs, translations were provided or otherwise, you likely would have no idea what was being referred to. But otherwise, it scans like the latest issue of a celebrity magazine that focuses on the royals. Henry VIII marriages and weight (it took 16 yeomen to carry his coffin). Victoria's gushing about Albert - Albert was the straight-laced prude, not Victoria - got to be very repetitious. I sympathize with those that had to listen to the non-stop effusive affection she held for her husband. The ego of the Duke of Windsor who complained about being governor in the Bahamas and needing more money/allowance while the people of England were suffering under brutal rationing.
And more of the same - a dissecting of - mostly - the negative aspects or situations that the monarchs found themselves in. Is it a historical reference? Certainly gives some insight on aspects many writers might leave out. Is it authentic? Also likely. Is it amusing? In some cases, definitely. And as it is broken up by families and by each monarch, the reader can read a chapter here and there about their favorites without searching from cover to cover if so desired.
I've read several of Mr. Farquhar's books before and they DO always give some tidbits of information that the reader has likely not heard before and always tries to make the subjects entertaining - - especially when dealing with "characters" and "personalities".
2021-107
February 7, 2023
The general impression from this book that takes us from the reigns of Henry VIII through to Elizabeth II is that it is written by a tabloid journalist. The author may, in fact, be a historian, but his tone is prejudicial. Perhaps I should have known better, just from the title.
Still, there are some redeeming things about the book: it covers even the lesser known royals, and explains some of issues of their lifetimes. I now know who the College of William and Mary are named for, although that is not mentioned specifically. (It is for William III and Mary II, who were co-monarchs, another fact of which I was unaware.)
Having just finished Price Harry's memoir, this might not have been a good time for this book. I read with a fair amount of skepticism, especially due to the afore mentioned tone.
Most of the monarchs do not fare well in the author's assessment, although I do have to say he cited his reasons thoroughly. Queen Elizabeth II, who was still reigning at the time this was written, is among the exceptions to this, although even she was dinged for her response to Princess Diana's death. However, he concluded that she overcame that brief reduction in her popularity.
Still, there are some redeeming things about the book: it covers even the lesser known royals, and explains some of issues of their lifetimes. I now know who the College of William and Mary are named for, although that is not mentioned specifically. (It is for William III and Mary II, who were co-monarchs, another fact of which I was unaware.)
Having just finished Price Harry's memoir, this might not have been a good time for this book. I read with a fair amount of skepticism, especially due to the afore mentioned tone.
Most of the monarchs do not fare well in the author's assessment, although I do have to say he cited his reasons thoroughly. Queen Elizabeth II, who was still reigning at the time this was written, is among the exceptions to this, although even she was dinged for her response to Princess Diana's death. However, he concluded that she overcame that brief reduction in her popularity.
February 13, 2018
This was an interesting read to follow the English monarchs from Henry Tudor’s defeat of Richard III to end the War of the Roses and begin the Tudor dynasty as Henry VII to Queen Elizabeth II. The monarchy has survived 600+years which is remarkable. They are all related to one another; no country has invaded England, and nothing has broken apart the country. Along the way, there were good kings and bad (the queens were mostly good) and lots of illegitimate children. The sons of King George III had 57 children, 56 were illegitimate. King James VI and I for whom the King James version of the Bible is named was definitely not pious. They were definitely a randy bunch. There were murders, solved and unsolved, and executions. King George VI and his daughter, QEII, have the monarchy on solid ground, and the future seems bright.
A lot of the information I had read before, but it was interesting to read a chapter about each monarch. Some of the info about the Stuarts was new and filled in some gaps. Overall, this was a worthwhile read for anyone who enjoys English history.
A lot of the information I had read before, but it was interesting to read a chapter about each monarch. Some of the info about the Stuarts was new and filled in some gaps. Overall, this was a worthwhile read for anyone who enjoys English history.
January 15, 2020
I am not someone who reads serious history books. In order to get me to read about history you have to make it interesting and/or fun to read. Michael Farquhar succeeded in providing a very easy to read and interesting book about 500 years of British royal history. He has a chapter on every monarch from Henry VIII to Queen Elizabeth II. He reveals the secret lives of some of the great and not so great leaders. Far from dull - there is scandal, faithless spouses, children who take over the kingdom from a father/king, siblings killing one another, wars and mistresses.
The author provides family trees for every royal house from the Tudors to the Windsors. This was very helpful in understanding the relationships between royals.
I was puzzled why the author only included less than 3 pages about Queen Elizabeth II, the current ruler. She has been queen since 1952 and I would have liked to have read more about her. Her husband, children and grandchildren were not even mentioned.
The author provides family trees for every royal house from the Tudors to the Windsors. This was very helpful in understanding the relationships between royals.
I was puzzled why the author only included less than 3 pages about Queen Elizabeth II, the current ruler. She has been queen since 1952 and I would have liked to have read more about her. Her husband, children and grandchildren were not even mentioned.
April 3, 2011
I found this book to be thoroughly entertaining and let's be honest, it just made me feel smarter to say I was reading a non-fiction.
This is my type of non-fiction though. It reads like a fiction novel and sometimes I had to remind myself that all this crazy stuff happened. The books talks about the royal families and all the crazy murders, riots, executions, revenge, and really, really bad parents that seem to have worn the crown or wanted to wear the crown. I was fascinated. I mean, this definitely is not for those looking for pure history. This is history and all the events and the mistresses are documented but this is more like the tabloids of history. Yeah, my kids of stories.
This is my type of non-fiction though. It reads like a fiction novel and sometimes I had to remind myself that all this crazy stuff happened. The books talks about the royal families and all the crazy murders, riots, executions, revenge, and really, really bad parents that seem to have worn the crown or wanted to wear the crown. I was fascinated. I mean, this definitely is not for those looking for pure history. This is history and all the events and the mistresses are documented but this is more like the tabloids of history. Yeah, my kids of stories.
December 15, 2017
Poor research and commonly believed legends over facts makes this historical fiction over history. Some chapters are better then others, but it’s unfortunate that the author didn’t do more digging for real sensations tales rather then trotting out the same old refuted legends, the George and the cherry tree of British history, like Anne boleyn sixth finger.
I listen to the overdrive audiobook which had ok voice acting but really highlighted the authors fondness for ctrl-copy rather then rewriting when chapters overlapped temporally.
You can do better then this book for salacious sensational factual history
I listen to the overdrive audiobook which had ok voice acting but really highlighted the authors fondness for ctrl-copy rather then rewriting when chapters overlapped temporally.
You can do better then this book for salacious sensational factual history
December 29, 2020
I read this book after watching The Spanish Princess (Catherine of Aragon) series on TV. I became fascinated with the Tudors. This book tells us about notable royals from the Tudors through the Windsors. Wow - what a crazy (literally!) crew. This history is so vast, that this book only skims the surface of that history. While the facts of these people are interesting, the book itself is a bit dry and at times became a recitation of names (and it seems like they all had the same name!). All in all - I found it to be a solid introduction to the British royals, students of history may find it to be a bit more like a People magazine version of the monarchy though.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 186 reviews