What do you think?
Rate this book
Francis Urquhart #2
To Play the King
The second book in the trilogy that inspired the hit Netflix series House of Cards
After scheming his way to power in House of Cards, newly elected Prime Minister Francis Urquhart takes on the new King,
The role of the monarchy in modern Britain comes under scrutiny as Prime Minister Francis Urquhart threatens to expose Royal secrets when his plans are blocked by the idealistic new King. Their differences of opinion quickly degenerate into open hostility. The battlefield ranges from architecture to the underprivileged; the battle is fought with rigged opinion polls, manipulated newspaper headlines, sexual scandal and economic brinkmanship as Urquhart sets out to destroy not only the King's family and friends but even the King himself.
Continuing the dark tale of greed, corruption, and unquenchable ambition, To Play the King reveals that no matter the country, politics, intrigue and passion reign in the corridors of power.
"This blood and thunder tale, lifelike and thoroughly cynical, certainly carries the ring of authenticity....a great triumph." � The Independent
369 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1992
153 people are currently reading
1921 people want to read
About the author
Michael Dobbs
101 books371 followersMichael Dobbs was born on the same day, in the same hour as Prince Charles in 1948.
He is the son of nurseryman Eric and his wife Eileen Dobbs and was educated at Hertford Grammar School and Christ Church, Oxford University. After graduating in 1971 he moved to the United States.
In the USA he attended the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, which he funded by a job as feature writer for the Boston Globe, where he worked as an editorial assistant and political feature writer from 1971 to 1975.
He graduated in 1975 with an M.A., M.A.L.D., and PhD in nuclear defence studies. His doctoral thesis was published as SALT on the Dragon's Tail. In 2007 he returned to Tufts where he gave the Alumni Salutation.
After gaining his PhD he returned to England and began working in London for the Conservative Party. He was an advisor to the then leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher, from 1977 to 1979 and from 1979 to 1981 he was a Conservative MP speechwriter.
He served as a Government Special Advisor from 1981 to 1986 and he survived the Brighton Bombing in 1984 at the Conservative Party Conference. He was the Conservative Party Chief of Staff from 1986 to 1987.
He was considered a masterful political operator and was called "Westminster’s baby-faced hit man", by The Guardian in 1987. In the John Major government, he served as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party from 1994 to 1995, after which he retired from politics.
Outside of politics, he worked at Saatchi & Saatchi as Deputy Advertising Chairman from 1983 to 1986 and was Director of Worldwide Corporate Communications at the company from 1987 to 1988. He became Deputy Chairman, working directly under Maurice Saatchi from 1988 to 1991.
From 1991 to 1998 he was a columnist for The Mail on Sunday and also wrote column for the Daily Express. From 1998 to 2001 he hosted the current affairs program Despatch Box on BBC television and has also been a radio presenter.
Nowadays he is best known as the bestselling author of 17 novels (up to 2010), such as 'The Turning Point', about Winston Churchill and Guy Burgess, and 'A Family Affair', about the last days of Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street, and also a number of non-fiction works.
His writing career began in 1989 with the publication of 'House of Cards', the first in what would become a trilogy of political thrillers with Francis Urquhart as the central character. 'House of Cards' was followed by 'To Play the King' in 1992 and 'The Final Cut' in 1994.
Each of the three novels was adapted by the BBC into a miniseries and, with Ian Richardson playiing a starring role, the trilogy received a combined 14 BAFTA nominations and two BAFTA wins and was voted the 84th Best British Show in History.
His 2004 novel 'Winston’s War' was shortlisted for the Channel 4 Political Book of the Year Award. He was the winner of the Benjamin Franklin Award for best historical novel in 2008 and in 2001 was shortlisted for the C4 Political Novel of the Year. He has also been a judge of the Whitbread Book of the Year Award and lectures at dozens of literary and fundraising events each year.
Anthony Howard of The Times said “Dobbs is following in a respectable tradition. Shakespeare, Walter Scott, even Tolstoy, all used historical events as the framework for their writings. And, unlike some of their distinguished works, Dobbs's novel is, in fact, astonishingly historically accurate."
He is now a full time writer and divides his time between London and Wiltshire, where he says that he lives near a church and a pub! He is married with four children.
Gerry Wolstenholme
October 2010
He is sometimes confused with American author Michael Dobbs, who is a distant relative of his and also an author of historical books (e.g. "Saboteurs - The Nazi Raid on America").
He is the son of nurseryman Eric and his wife Eileen Dobbs and was educated at Hertford Grammar School and Christ Church, Oxford University. After graduating in 1971 he moved to the United States.
In the USA he attended the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, which he funded by a job as feature writer for the Boston Globe, where he worked as an editorial assistant and political feature writer from 1971 to 1975.
He graduated in 1975 with an M.A., M.A.L.D., and PhD in nuclear defence studies. His doctoral thesis was published as SALT on the Dragon's Tail. In 2007 he returned to Tufts where he gave the Alumni Salutation.
After gaining his PhD he returned to England and began working in London for the Conservative Party. He was an advisor to the then leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher, from 1977 to 1979 and from 1979 to 1981 he was a Conservative MP speechwriter.
He served as a Government Special Advisor from 1981 to 1986 and he survived the Brighton Bombing in 1984 at the Conservative Party Conference. He was the Conservative Party Chief of Staff from 1986 to 1987.
He was considered a masterful political operator and was called "Westminster’s baby-faced hit man", by The Guardian in 1987. In the John Major government, he served as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party from 1994 to 1995, after which he retired from politics.
Outside of politics, he worked at Saatchi & Saatchi as Deputy Advertising Chairman from 1983 to 1986 and was Director of Worldwide Corporate Communications at the company from 1987 to 1988. He became Deputy Chairman, working directly under Maurice Saatchi from 1988 to 1991.
From 1991 to 1998 he was a columnist for The Mail on Sunday and also wrote column for the Daily Express. From 1998 to 2001 he hosted the current affairs program Despatch Box on BBC television and has also been a radio presenter.
Nowadays he is best known as the bestselling author of 17 novels (up to 2010), such as 'The Turning Point', about Winston Churchill and Guy Burgess, and 'A Family Affair', about the last days of Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street, and also a number of non-fiction works.
His writing career began in 1989 with the publication of 'House of Cards', the first in what would become a trilogy of political thrillers with Francis Urquhart as the central character. 'House of Cards' was followed by 'To Play the King' in 1992 and 'The Final Cut' in 1994.
Each of the three novels was adapted by the BBC into a miniseries and, with Ian Richardson playiing a starring role, the trilogy received a combined 14 BAFTA nominations and two BAFTA wins and was voted the 84th Best British Show in History.
His 2004 novel 'Winston’s War' was shortlisted for the Channel 4 Political Book of the Year Award. He was the winner of the Benjamin Franklin Award for best historical novel in 2008 and in 2001 was shortlisted for the C4 Political Novel of the Year. He has also been a judge of the Whitbread Book of the Year Award and lectures at dozens of literary and fundraising events each year.
Anthony Howard of The Times said “Dobbs is following in a respectable tradition. Shakespeare, Walter Scott, even Tolstoy, all used historical events as the framework for their writings. And, unlike some of their distinguished works, Dobbs's novel is, in fact, astonishingly historically accurate."
He is now a full time writer and divides his time between London and Wiltshire, where he says that he lives near a church and a pub! He is married with four children.
Gerry Wolstenholme
October 2010
He is sometimes confused with American author Michael Dobbs, who is a distant relative of his and also an author of historical books (e.g. "Saboteurs - The Nazi Raid on America").
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 172 reviews
March 8, 2025
Four stars, but ONLY for the last five pages, as "To play the King" is far far away of the spectacular beauty of "House of Cards". The action is slower, the plot is somehow unreal, as it grows up practically from nothing: a speech. Even Urquhart is less convincing, being rather brutal than clever, a fact that turns against him, much to the readers' joy, I think.
Only one more thing, the king's words in confrontation with the prime minister: "They will no longer let a king be a man, just as they will not let any man be king". A very good one, perhaps the best from the entire book...
Only one more thing, the king's words in confrontation with the prime minister: "They will no longer let a king be a man, just as they will not let any man be king". A very good one, perhaps the best from the entire book...
December 30, 2020
In this second part of the House of Cards trilogy, Francis Urquhart, now Prime Minister, takes on none other than the King, both the man and all he stands to represent.
The story is well-documented, certainly drawing on Michael Dobbs’ experience as editorial assistant and feature writer, then politician for the Conservative party. Some of the issues seem close to his heart - and his right wing penchant is rather obvious.
It was interesting to get an insider’s view of the workings of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, as well as of how Madam Speaker (miraculously) prevents total mayhem.
This felt less suspenseful, more linear than the first volume. The characters are nicely fleshed out but the intrigue seems long-winded, abruptly resolving at the end with the customary twist.
It was a good read but lacked the extra spark of the first volume (or perhaps I just read it at the wrong time/in the wrong mood). I will be reading The Final Cut as definitely want to know how it all ends.
The story is well-documented, certainly drawing on Michael Dobbs’ experience as editorial assistant and feature writer, then politician for the Conservative party. Some of the issues seem close to his heart - and his right wing penchant is rather obvious.
It was interesting to get an insider’s view of the workings of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, as well as of how Madam Speaker (miraculously) prevents total mayhem.
This felt less suspenseful, more linear than the first volume. The characters are nicely fleshed out but the intrigue seems long-winded, abruptly resolving at the end with the customary twist.
It was a good read but lacked the extra spark of the first volume (or perhaps I just read it at the wrong time/in the wrong mood). I will be reading The Final Cut as definitely want to know how it all ends.
October 16, 2021
Read this book in 2011, and its the 2nd part of the Francis Urquhart trilogy.
Our main protagonist, Francis Urquhart, is now Prime Minister, and ruling with an iron fist.
So much so that it will finally come to a confrontation between the Prime Minister, who's playing the King, with the Royal Family with at its head, King Charles.
What is to follow is a clash between two individuals that will only end with losers on both sides, and that told by the author in a entertaining fashion.
Recommended, if you like a confrontation between Prime Minister and King for Kingship, a dream of wishful thinking or true possibility, whatever it is, I like to call this book "A Good Follow Up!", and no more than that, simply because its much less believable than its predecessor.
Our main protagonist, Francis Urquhart, is now Prime Minister, and ruling with an iron fist.
So much so that it will finally come to a confrontation between the Prime Minister, who's playing the King, with the Royal Family with at its head, King Charles.
What is to follow is a clash between two individuals that will only end with losers on both sides, and that told by the author in a entertaining fashion.
Recommended, if you like a confrontation between Prime Minister and King for Kingship, a dream of wishful thinking or true possibility, whatever it is, I like to call this book "A Good Follow Up!", and no more than that, simply because its much less believable than its predecessor.
April 4, 2023
Страхотна книга! Разкрива тъмните страни на политиката. В случая във Великобритания, но тези неща със сигурност се случват и в България.
July 9, 2017
I opted for this series out of curiosity, considering that it has served as a source of inspiration for the critically acclaimed and award-winning political drama TV series called House of Cards, which is one of my favourites. What is important to know is that the books focus on the politics of the United Kingdom, whereas the famous TV series centers around the politics of the United States, therefore there is a great number of differences between the two. Personally, I prefer the TV series. Although I think that To Play the King is a well-written novel which offers a valuable insight into the UK's political system, the characters aren't as complex and fascinating as those who feature in the American TV series. I was able to identify a number of common traits between Francis Urquhart and Francis Underwood, such as their intelligence, their perseverance in attaining the highest leadership position and the way they ruin relentlessly all their political opponents. I am bitterly disappointed with the lack of development in Mortima Urquhart's case, Francis' wife. From my point of view, the author treated superficially this female character, while in the TV series she is as important as her cruel husband.
I am not sure how much I enjoyed the second installment in the Francis Urquhart series. I believe that my favourite part was the ending due to the fact that I was rooting for the king. To Play the King deserves about 3.5 stars and I recommend you to read Michael Dobbs' series if you are a fan of the TV series because it provides you with a very different perspective regarding the politics, the characters and their personalities.
I am not sure how much I enjoyed the second installment in the Francis Urquhart series. I believe that my favourite part was the ending due to the fact that I was rooting for the king. To Play the King deserves about 3.5 stars and I recommend you to read Michael Dobbs' series if you are a fan of the TV series because it provides you with a very different perspective regarding the politics, the characters and their personalities.
February 28, 2016
Да изиграеш краля не е лесно дори ако си премиер-министър: http://knigolandia.info/book-review/d...
"– Наследствената монархия е институция, която не се подчинява на логиката. Това е опиат, с който от време на време напръскваме масите, за да ги успокоим, да предизвикаме в тях гордост и уважение, да спечелим подчинението им, без да има много въпроси."
Франсис Ъркарт наглед спечели войната, заставайки на поста премиер-министър в края на първата част, увенчавайки успеха си и с последната крачка към пълното си морално падение – убийството. Но се оказва, че дори и най-високият властови пост не може да задоволи желанието му да командва всичко и всички. Бързо-бързо той се оказва в конфликт с новокоронования крал, който има желание да поеме по-активна обществена роля – а това, както и да го погледнеш, си е намесване в прерогативите на Ъркарт. И се започва нова спирала от задълбочаващи се залози – в нея се включват атаки към членове на монархическата фамилия, умела манипулация на общественото мнение, откровени мръсни номера. Всичко, което премиер-министърът владее до съвършенство.
CIELA Books
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/d...
"– Наследствената монархия е институция, която не се подчинява на логиката. Това е опиат, с който от време на време напръскваме масите, за да ги успокоим, да предизвикаме в тях гордост и уважение, да спечелим подчинението им, без да има много въпроси."
Франсис Ъркарт наглед спечели войната, заставайки на поста премиер-министър в края на първата част, увенчавайки успеха си и с последната крачка към пълното си морално падение – убийството. Но се оказва, че дори и най-високият властови пост не може да задоволи желанието му да командва всичко и всички. Бързо-бързо той се оказва в конфликт с новокоронования крал, който има желание да поеме по-активна обществена роля – а това, както и да го погледнеш, си е намесване в прерогативите на Ъркарт. И се започва нова спирала от задълбочаващи се залози – в нея се включват атаки към членове на монархическата фамилия, умела манипулация на общественото мнение, откровени мръсни номера. Всичко, което премиер-министърът владее до съвършенство.
CIELA Books
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/d...
October 9, 2016
Not sure if it is because of what is happening in my own life at the moment, but I love the whole House of Cards premise.
This is the second book in the series and it hasn't lost any of the intrigue of the first book. The lead protagonist, FU, has lost none of his ability to manipulate others to further his own agendas! Pure evil!
Look forward to Book Three, the conclusion of the trilogy! Will FU be able to hold his position of power??!!
This is the second book in the series and it hasn't lost any of the intrigue of the first book. The lead protagonist, FU, has lost none of his ability to manipulate others to further his own agendas! Pure evil!
Look forward to Book Three, the conclusion of the trilogy! Will FU be able to hold his position of power??!!
September 1, 2019
I have to say, I honestly think the first book is better for three main reasons. Note there are spoilers here.
First, there seemed to be a lot of setup of the relationships of the King’s press secretary as a gay man with very little payoff. I guess this was to humanize the situation more, but it felt like it dragged to me (it seemed there were many more pages to setup the emotional aspects of the gay affair as were dedicated to both Francis plotting to use it as ammo and the press secretary dealing with the fallout combined). Especially as this same treatment was not applied to Francis’s wife’s affair, which similarly has a lot of weight behind it when it comes up as political ammo.
Second, there is a failing in the treatment of the woman Francis was having an affair with. Her betrayal of Francis involves heavy ambiguity prior to its announcement to avoid spoiling this is a twist, and then is announced by Francis’s newspaper antagonist without her even being there. She also doesn’t seem to be well written in her transition between supporting Francis and seeking to undermine him, again to avoid spoiling the twist, but it makes it seem like it’s just tacked on at the end.
Third, and this is the big one, this books suffers from the common problem of being the second book in a trilogy - it ends on a climactic reversal that prevents it from standing on its own as a work. I feel this can be done in a way that works (Empire Strikes Back did it phenomenally), but it doesn’t work so well for a political thriller of this type. We spend the entire book following the back and forth of Francis trying to plot out a good position for the election he wants to hold, and then he does it and the rug is pulled out from under him. In this way, it kind of makes the scheming of the entire book void and pointless. We also don’t get enough of the schemes of the King, etc. (again, because if all the plans were laid bare, it would be too much info for suspense) to really be ok with them “winning” this situation at the end.
I am still to read the third book, but as it stands now, I feel like there was likely enough that could be cut from this one and combined with the third book to be a more complete and interesting story.
First, there seemed to be a lot of setup of the relationships of the King’s press secretary as a gay man with very little payoff. I guess this was to humanize the situation more, but it felt like it dragged to me (it seemed there were many more pages to setup the emotional aspects of the gay affair as were dedicated to both Francis plotting to use it as ammo and the press secretary dealing with the fallout combined). Especially as this same treatment was not applied to Francis’s wife’s affair, which similarly has a lot of weight behind it when it comes up as political ammo.
Second, there is a failing in the treatment of the woman Francis was having an affair with. Her betrayal of Francis involves heavy ambiguity prior to its announcement to avoid spoiling this is a twist, and then is announced by Francis’s newspaper antagonist without her even being there. She also doesn’t seem to be well written in her transition between supporting Francis and seeking to undermine him, again to avoid spoiling the twist, but it makes it seem like it’s just tacked on at the end.
Third, and this is the big one, this books suffers from the common problem of being the second book in a trilogy - it ends on a climactic reversal that prevents it from standing on its own as a work. I feel this can be done in a way that works (Empire Strikes Back did it phenomenally), but it doesn’t work so well for a political thriller of this type. We spend the entire book following the back and forth of Francis trying to plot out a good position for the election he wants to hold, and then he does it and the rug is pulled out from under him. In this way, it kind of makes the scheming of the entire book void and pointless. We also don’t get enough of the schemes of the King, etc. (again, because if all the plans were laid bare, it would be too much info for suspense) to really be ok with them “winning” this situation at the end.
I am still to read the third book, but as it stands now, I feel like there was likely enough that could be cut from this one and combined with the third book to be a more complete and interesting story.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 16, 2013
Dobbs follows through with the second in the trilogy, picking up the thread of the plot where it left off in HOUSE OF CARDS. This new book (with its political action) moves the story away from the party leadership and into the aftermass that will keep the reader on the edge of their seat, especially for the political nut. The PM faces a fairly new Monarch who has ascended the throne, with little experience dealing with his role as constitutional monarch. Both the PM and HRH have their own ideas as to how the United Kingdom ought to forge ahead, neither seeing the other one's position as viable. The constitution stands between them and while they flex their muscles, only one has the ultimate power. As the plot thickens and the characters paint themselves into their respective corners, the political standoff heightens and can leave only one result, the winner getting ALL the spoils and the loser crashing down to burn in the ashes. But who will stand victorious remains to be seen
Dobbs has an uncanny way of addressing many issues as sub-plots within the larger book. Examining the current day issues of royal tabloid stories and the need to hide personal lives for political expediency, Dobbs makes the most of it in his book and has the story form itself around these issues. Dobbs keeps the reader intensely interested and wondering as the PM pushes ahead and the King not standing around and letting himself be bullied. The last 'chapter' truly brings things to a head in an explosive way that even I did not see (well, the outcome) How Dobbs will tie the book’s loose ends off, only he knows. That said, it is sure to be an explosive end and full of intrigue, both political and personal.
Kudos, Mr. Dobbs. Another stellar political thriller, from the home of the prim and proper.
Dobbs has an uncanny way of addressing many issues as sub-plots within the larger book. Examining the current day issues of royal tabloid stories and the need to hide personal lives for political expediency, Dobbs makes the most of it in his book and has the story form itself around these issues. Dobbs keeps the reader intensely interested and wondering as the PM pushes ahead and the King not standing around and letting himself be bullied. The last 'chapter' truly brings things to a head in an explosive way that even I did not see (well, the outcome) How Dobbs will tie the book’s loose ends off, only he knows. That said, it is sure to be an explosive end and full of intrigue, both political and personal.
Kudos, Mr. Dobbs. Another stellar political thriller, from the home of the prim and proper.
July 26, 2017
As happened with the first book, this one was finished quickly and gripped my attention effectively. However, there were a few moments that made me feel a bit discomforted. Most of all, it is the fact that Urquhart seems to be an entirely different person of a character than he was in the previous book. The cold, wise, intriguing and entirely calculated mind betrayed him several times in this book, in situations that I felt he would easily handle as a character of the previous one.
The ending again, even though logical and inevitable, was breath-taking with its rapidity, seeming simplicity and logic. Life is cruel to our mistakes, let's say. And in politics it's much-much more so.
The ending again, even though logical and inevitable, was breath-taking with its rapidity, seeming simplicity and logic. Life is cruel to our mistakes, let's say. And in politics it's much-much more so.
September 26, 2014
It took a turn. Where is my magnificent bastard? The strong (if not loving) relationship with his wife?
Again, I can't help but compare it to the TV show that introduced me to the books in the first place. For this book it had to be different as a republic and constitutional monarchy aren't going to work the same way.
Again, I can't help but compare it to the TV show that introduced me to the books in the first place. For this book it had to be different as a republic and constitutional monarchy aren't going to work the same way.
October 18, 2017
That plot twist at the very end though 😱
3.5 stars, I think, not quite sure how to rate this one.
A lot more central characters, a lot of evil planning and plotting, but not as badass as the first book. Nevertheless I really enjoyed this one, and I'm looking forward to getting to the final book in this series 😄
3.5 stars, I think, not quite sure how to rate this one.
A lot more central characters, a lot of evil planning and plotting, but not as badass as the first book. Nevertheless I really enjoyed this one, and I'm looking forward to getting to the final book in this series 😄
March 2, 2019
Szybko wzięłam się za drugi tom House of Cards i równie szybko szło mi jego czytanie, bo po dwóch dniach byłam już w połowie. Szybko jak na mnie, bo czasami wejście w książkę zajmuje mi kilka dni, jak w przypadku pierwszego tomu o Francisie Urquharcie.
Francis Urquhart wygrał wybory w partii i został premierem. Jednak musi pamiętać, że nie został wybrany przez naród, a według wielu – w tym samego króla – nie czyni go prawdziwym premierem. Urquhart kolejny raz musi zagrać o władzę. Tylko, że tym razem jego największym przeciwnikiem jest sam król, a monarchia w Wielkiej Brytanii jest głęboko zakorzeniona. Przeciwnik trudny, a stawka wysoka. Musi dobrze wszystko rozplanować, bo kraj pogrąża się w recesji, a słupki procentowe jego partii wołają o pomstę do nieba. Czy Francis doprowadzi do wcześniejszych wyborów parlamentarnych w sprzyjającym dla niego okresie? Jeśli tak to czy je wygra? Wygrana pozwoliłaby mu umocnić swoją władzę. Należy tylko ograć króla…
Francis został premierem i udało mu się stworzyć rząd. Wie jednak, że nie może legitymować się mandatem od społeczeństwa, co dla wielu może być jego polityczną wadą. Na dodatek nie ma króla po swojej stronie, chociaż dla dobra wszystkich rząd i król powinni grać do jednej bramki. Francis musi jednak walczyć z królem tak, aby nikt o tym nie wiedział, bo ostatnie, czego potrzebuje to kryzys konstytucyjny. To powoduje u nowego premiera lekką dezorientację i źle ocenia ludzi, którzy wchodzą do jego kręgu. Do tej pory jego jedynym przeciwnikiem był premier, którego łatwo pokonał, a pozostałe przeszkody szybko eliminował. Króla nie może odsunąć od władzy przez zły wizerunek, które publikowałyby media ani też nie może go zabić, bo to nie uszłoby mu na sucho. Mimo to Urquhart nie poddaje się i rozpoczyna kolejną polityczną walkę, którą rozgrywa.
Ważną postacią w tej książce jest sam monarcha, który nosi tytuł króla dopiero od czterech miesięcy. Próbuje on wyjść poza obraz władcy, który panował do tej pory. Chce wyjść do obywateli, chce żeby rodzina królewska nie była traktowana jak pasożyty przez naród. Chce opodatkować ich dochody, posiadłości, chce być bardziej ludzki. Jednak premierem jest Francis Urquhart, który doskonale wie, że takie pokazanie królewskiej rodziny sprawiłoby, że jego poparcie, które i tak jest drastycznie niskie spadłoby jeszcze bardziej. Dlatego nie pozwala królowi na takie „wybryki”. Doprowadza do decyzji, której nikt by się nie spodziewał po nowym królu…
Przyznam, że nie spodziewałam się nowej postaci damskiej w drugim tomie. W poprzednim ważną rolę odgrywała Mattie Storin. W tym koło Francisa kręci się piękna Amerykanka, która uciekła ze swojego kraju ze względu na swoją przeszłość. Straciła dziecko, bo mąż pobił ją do tego stopnia, że poroniła, więc rozwiodła się i postanowiła zacząć nowe życie w Wielkiej Brytanii, gdzie otworzyła firmę zajmującą się badaniami opinii publicznej. Tylko czy Sally jest naprawdę szczera w tym, co mówi? Czy nie stoi za tym jeden z wrogów nowego premiera? Nie zapominajmy, że po zostaniu premierem Francisowi Urquhartowi przybyło kilko wrogów. Podczas walki o ten fotel obiecał coś komuś i nie spełnił swoich obietnic, a to przedsiębiorców boli najbardziej…
„Ograć króla” czytało mi się zdecydowanie lepiej niż pierwszy tom. Pewnie, dlatego, że eliminowanie politycznych przeciwników nie szło Francisowi już tak gładko jak poprzednio. Tu natrafił na najcięższy kaliber – króla. Może nie pod względem władzy, ale brakiem szans na wyeliminowanie już jak najbardziej. Francis wie, że w Wielkiej Brytanii rodzina królewska dla wielu jest kwintesencją ich narodowości i tylko przez wygranie wyborów może przekonać do siebie monarchę. Poznajemy głównego bohatera z zupełnie innej strony. Już nie jest tak pewny, popełnia drobne błędny, ale dalej jest bezwzględny w swojej grze o władzę…
Drugi tom zakończył się w takim momencie, że natychmiast musiałam zacząć czytać tom trzeci. Naprawdę jest to dobra powieść oraz seria o tym jak wielkim i bezlitosnym bagnem jest polityka. Ja polecam i biorę się za „Ostatnie rozdanie”.
„Normalnie nie mam skłonności do powątpiewania we własne siły. Czasami jednak wszystko, co sobie zaplanowaliśmy, wymyka się jak piasek przesypujący się między palcami: im bardziej usiłujemy go złapać, tym bardziej nieuchwytny się staje.”~ Michael Dobbs, House of Cards. Ograć króla, Kraków 2015, s. 184.
Francis Urquhart wygrał wybory w partii i został premierem. Jednak musi pamiętać, że nie został wybrany przez naród, a według wielu – w tym samego króla – nie czyni go prawdziwym premierem. Urquhart kolejny raz musi zagrać o władzę. Tylko, że tym razem jego największym przeciwnikiem jest sam król, a monarchia w Wielkiej Brytanii jest głęboko zakorzeniona. Przeciwnik trudny, a stawka wysoka. Musi dobrze wszystko rozplanować, bo kraj pogrąża się w recesji, a słupki procentowe jego partii wołają o pomstę do nieba. Czy Francis doprowadzi do wcześniejszych wyborów parlamentarnych w sprzyjającym dla niego okresie? Jeśli tak to czy je wygra? Wygrana pozwoliłaby mu umocnić swoją władzę. Należy tylko ograć króla…
Francis został premierem i udało mu się stworzyć rząd. Wie jednak, że nie może legitymować się mandatem od społeczeństwa, co dla wielu może być jego polityczną wadą. Na dodatek nie ma króla po swojej stronie, chociaż dla dobra wszystkich rząd i król powinni grać do jednej bramki. Francis musi jednak walczyć z królem tak, aby nikt o tym nie wiedział, bo ostatnie, czego potrzebuje to kryzys konstytucyjny. To powoduje u nowego premiera lekką dezorientację i źle ocenia ludzi, którzy wchodzą do jego kręgu. Do tej pory jego jedynym przeciwnikiem był premier, którego łatwo pokonał, a pozostałe przeszkody szybko eliminował. Króla nie może odsunąć od władzy przez zły wizerunek, które publikowałyby media ani też nie może go zabić, bo to nie uszłoby mu na sucho. Mimo to Urquhart nie poddaje się i rozpoczyna kolejną polityczną walkę, którą rozgrywa.
Ważną postacią w tej książce jest sam monarcha, który nosi tytuł króla dopiero od czterech miesięcy. Próbuje on wyjść poza obraz władcy, który panował do tej pory. Chce wyjść do obywateli, chce żeby rodzina królewska nie była traktowana jak pasożyty przez naród. Chce opodatkować ich dochody, posiadłości, chce być bardziej ludzki. Jednak premierem jest Francis Urquhart, który doskonale wie, że takie pokazanie królewskiej rodziny sprawiłoby, że jego poparcie, które i tak jest drastycznie niskie spadłoby jeszcze bardziej. Dlatego nie pozwala królowi na takie „wybryki”. Doprowadza do decyzji, której nikt by się nie spodziewał po nowym królu…
Przyznam, że nie spodziewałam się nowej postaci damskiej w drugim tomie. W poprzednim ważną rolę odgrywała Mattie Storin. W tym koło Francisa kręci się piękna Amerykanka, która uciekła ze swojego kraju ze względu na swoją przeszłość. Straciła dziecko, bo mąż pobił ją do tego stopnia, że poroniła, więc rozwiodła się i postanowiła zacząć nowe życie w Wielkiej Brytanii, gdzie otworzyła firmę zajmującą się badaniami opinii publicznej. Tylko czy Sally jest naprawdę szczera w tym, co mówi? Czy nie stoi za tym jeden z wrogów nowego premiera? Nie zapominajmy, że po zostaniu premierem Francisowi Urquhartowi przybyło kilko wrogów. Podczas walki o ten fotel obiecał coś komuś i nie spełnił swoich obietnic, a to przedsiębiorców boli najbardziej…
„Ograć króla” czytało mi się zdecydowanie lepiej niż pierwszy tom. Pewnie, dlatego, że eliminowanie politycznych przeciwników nie szło Francisowi już tak gładko jak poprzednio. Tu natrafił na najcięższy kaliber – króla. Może nie pod względem władzy, ale brakiem szans na wyeliminowanie już jak najbardziej. Francis wie, że w Wielkiej Brytanii rodzina królewska dla wielu jest kwintesencją ich narodowości i tylko przez wygranie wyborów może przekonać do siebie monarchę. Poznajemy głównego bohatera z zupełnie innej strony. Już nie jest tak pewny, popełnia drobne błędny, ale dalej jest bezwzględny w swojej grze o władzę…
Drugi tom zakończył się w takim momencie, że natychmiast musiałam zacząć czytać tom trzeci. Naprawdę jest to dobra powieść oraz seria o tym jak wielkim i bezlitosnym bagnem jest polityka. Ja polecam i biorę się za „Ostatnie rozdanie”.
„Normalnie nie mam skłonności do powątpiewania we własne siły. Czasami jednak wszystko, co sobie zaplanowaliśmy, wymyka się jak piasek przesypujący się między palcami: im bardziej usiłujemy go złapać, tym bardziej nieuchwytny się staje.”~ Michael Dobbs, House of Cards. Ograć króla, Kraków 2015, s. 184.
May 11, 2021
Francis Urquhart has ascended to the highest political office: the Prime Minister. When the King comes into conflict with him, Urquhart must devise a scheme to set the people against the Royal Family.
Dobbs continues his witty trilogy by raising the stakes even higher: pitting politicians against the Monarch they are sworn to serve.
Dobbs continues his witty trilogy by raising the stakes even higher: pitting politicians against the Monarch they are sworn to serve.
May 13, 2021
mixed feelings. The writing isn't as good as I had hoped, the author headhops and suchlike, which I don't like, the characters are sometimes a little 2 dimensional, but the main protagonist/villain is as awful as you would expect, and my cynical brain says all current politicians are like this at heart so maybe it should be put in non-fiction??
August 5, 2023
Un final descafeinado pero una novela que engancha…
Tengo opiniones contrarias con la segunda parte de House of Cards.
Por una parte los tejemanejes de Francis siguen siendo geniales y te atrapan durante toda la novela.
Sin embargo el final es demasiado abrupto y rápido para mi gusto acabando de sopetón y si bien es un poco inesperado se echa en falta más planificación y recorrido.
Tengo opiniones contrarias con la segunda parte de House of Cards.
Por una parte los tejemanejes de Francis siguen siendo geniales y te atrapan durante toda la novela.
Sin embargo el final es demasiado abrupto y rápido para mi gusto acabando de sopetón y si bien es un poco inesperado se echa en falta más planificación y recorrido.
September 14, 2017
Much less satisfying than the first. Where House of Cards felt bold and Shakespearean, To Play the King felt formulaic. It was as if Dobbs was trying to recreate the magic of the first book, but chose the wrong elements to replicate. A sort of literary George's Marvelous Medicine.
November 4, 2017
Не толкова завладяваща, колкото първата книга, но изключителна като хрумване и развитие на сюжета. Писателският талант на Майкъл Добс е наистина страхотен и е удоволствие да се чете.
Финалът за мен беше доста изненадващ и ми е интересно върху какво се гради третата книга.
Скоро ревю!
Финалът за мен беше доста изненадващ и ми е интересно върху какво се гради третата книга.
Скоро ревю!
August 19, 2024
While well written, I have to acknowledge that it was a struggle to continue at times simply because I don't like the people involved. Even the King, for all of his conscience, irritated me with his antics. Hopefully, the gardens look nice when they're done, though.
March 19, 2018
Continuación de las intrigas políticas de House of cards; en esta ocasión con una clara crítica, no solo al sistema político; sino también a la monarquía como institución. Recomendable!!!
August 19, 2021
I can understand why an American audience feels ambivalent about this book - especially if they have been fed a diet of the US TV series. This book is uniquely British. It portrays a future that may yet come and a political crisis that we have recently lived through. It combines an interesting speculation with the type of speculation that was instructive in recent times.
The speculative scenario revolves around the change in monarch. The Queen has done so well for so long because she understands her constitutional role - to have no opinions and to head the State. Her role is constitutional and ceremonial and not political.
How this may change when Prince Charles accedes to the throne is a case in point. He is often depicted and opinionated and meddlesome, with a tendency to interfere in political decisions. This is not how a constitutional monarch should behave and it is the premise that the scenario runs with. In the book, the newly crowned King plays politics and loses. There can only be one outcome, if the monarchy is to survive as an institution, and that is his abdication. I have to say that the the UK TV series covers this better than the book, but the drama leading up to the result is quite compelling.
The political premise of the book is much closer to home. We have a weak and ineffective Prime Minister (Henry Collingridge in House of Cards, Theresa May in real life) who is usurped by a more dynamic rival (Francis Urquhart in House of Cards, Boris Johnson in real life), whose ability to govern is circumscribed by the weak position they inherited in the House of Commons and the fact that they haven't won public approval in a General Election. The only answer is a General Election.
The book is about the election campaign. Whereas the constitutional question Urquhart has to resolve is the role of the monarchy, Johnson faced an equally deep constitutional question over the role of Europe in the British constitution. I find it interesting that in both elections - the real as well as the fictional - day to day politics had become subordinated to the wider question. Just as Urquhart got his majority and was able to put the King in his place, so did Johnson get his majority and was able to put Brussels into a place of his - and not their - making.
This parallel kept me gripped to the book. It helped that it was well written, with a plot that kept moving along and that had a good number of twists and turns. It's not often that I read a sequence of fiction that is consistently good, so I really enjoyed this book.
The speculative scenario revolves around the change in monarch. The Queen has done so well for so long because she understands her constitutional role - to have no opinions and to head the State. Her role is constitutional and ceremonial and not political.
How this may change when Prince Charles accedes to the throne is a case in point. He is often depicted and opinionated and meddlesome, with a tendency to interfere in political decisions. This is not how a constitutional monarch should behave and it is the premise that the scenario runs with. In the book, the newly crowned King plays politics and loses. There can only be one outcome, if the monarchy is to survive as an institution, and that is his abdication. I have to say that the the UK TV series covers this better than the book, but the drama leading up to the result is quite compelling.
The political premise of the book is much closer to home. We have a weak and ineffective Prime Minister (Henry Collingridge in House of Cards, Theresa May in real life) who is usurped by a more dynamic rival (Francis Urquhart in House of Cards, Boris Johnson in real life), whose ability to govern is circumscribed by the weak position they inherited in the House of Commons and the fact that they haven't won public approval in a General Election. The only answer is a General Election.
The book is about the election campaign. Whereas the constitutional question Urquhart has to resolve is the role of the monarchy, Johnson faced an equally deep constitutional question over the role of Europe in the British constitution. I find it interesting that in both elections - the real as well as the fictional - day to day politics had become subordinated to the wider question. Just as Urquhart got his majority and was able to put the King in his place, so did Johnson get his majority and was able to put Brussels into a place of his - and not their - making.
This parallel kept me gripped to the book. It helped that it was well written, with a plot that kept moving along and that had a good number of twists and turns. It's not often that I read a sequence of fiction that is consistently good, so I really enjoyed this book.
July 2, 2016
In questo secondo libro troviamo Francis Urquhart, o FU, al momento di insediarsi come primo ministro dopo aver ordito complotti per tutto il primo volume.
Questo libro centrale della sua trilogia vola via leggero e rapido, quasi non ci si accorge di averlo finito.
Merito della scrittura ma anche degli eventi che sembrano piovere addosso a Francis velocemente, incessantemente.
E del libro stesso che, alla fine, nemmeno conclude quanto iniziato.
Francis si trova subito in una posizione pericolosa, e deve fare in modo di rendere sicura la propria posizione malgrado congiunture economiche tremende. E per farlo si mette contro il suo vecchio sostenitore nei media, e sopratutto il nuovo re.
Ecco, diciamo che principalmente il libro tratta del ruolo della monarchia inglese all'interno del panorama costituzionale, dei suoi ruoli, dei suoi privilegi, dei suoi limiti. E dei suoi rapporti con il Primo Ministro e la politica in genere.
Non dovrebbe stupire che, al fianco di FU, il re passi da personaggio positivo, ottimista, liberale, di ampie vedute, fiducioso e sognatore. Del resto Urquhart è una delle persone più meschine e attaccate al potere che ci siano, e molto, molto più piatto di quanto non sia poi stato reso il suo personaggio nella serie tv americana.
La cosa si notava molto già nel primo libro, qua semplicemente abbiamo qualcuno a cui paragonare il credo di Francis e inorridire.
E malgrado ciò si tifa ugualmente per lui nei suoi scontri con re e opposizione.
Quello che non mi ha entusiasmato di questo libro, altrimenti molto buono, è che alla fine si limita a mostrare il rapporto con il re.
Le elezioni anticipate che voleva? La congiuntura economica? I suoi enormi problemi, col castello di carte che sul finale traballa fino quasi a cadere?
Niente, una volta sistemata la relazione col re finiamo il libro. Più di passaggio di così si muore, e ci rivediamo al prossimo volume.
Ecco, queste cose mi irritano.
A parte questo, e cioè il suo essere solo la prima parte del libro successivo, tutto molto bello.
Questo libro centrale della sua trilogia vola via leggero e rapido, quasi non ci si accorge di averlo finito.
Merito della scrittura ma anche degli eventi che sembrano piovere addosso a Francis velocemente, incessantemente.
E del libro stesso che, alla fine, nemmeno conclude quanto iniziato.
Francis si trova subito in una posizione pericolosa, e deve fare in modo di rendere sicura la propria posizione malgrado congiunture economiche tremende. E per farlo si mette contro il suo vecchio sostenitore nei media, e sopratutto il nuovo re.
Ecco, diciamo che principalmente il libro tratta del ruolo della monarchia inglese all'interno del panorama costituzionale, dei suoi ruoli, dei suoi privilegi, dei suoi limiti. E dei suoi rapporti con il Primo Ministro e la politica in genere.
Non dovrebbe stupire che, al fianco di FU, il re passi da personaggio positivo, ottimista, liberale, di ampie vedute, fiducioso e sognatore. Del resto Urquhart è una delle persone più meschine e attaccate al potere che ci siano, e molto, molto più piatto di quanto non sia poi stato reso il suo personaggio nella serie tv americana.
La cosa si notava molto già nel primo libro, qua semplicemente abbiamo qualcuno a cui paragonare il credo di Francis e inorridire.
E malgrado ciò si tifa ugualmente per lui nei suoi scontri con re e opposizione.
Quello che non mi ha entusiasmato di questo libro, altrimenti molto buono, è che alla fine si limita a mostrare il rapporto con il re.
Le elezioni anticipate che voleva? La congiuntura economica? I suoi enormi problemi, col castello di carte che sul finale traballa fino quasi a cadere?
Niente, una volta sistemata la relazione col re finiamo il libro. Più di passaggio di così si muore, e ci rivediamo al prossimo volume.
Ecco, queste cose mi irritano.
A parte questo, e cioè il suo essere solo la prima parte del libro successivo, tutto molto bello.
July 29, 2014
This is our second outing with Francis Urquhart (FU), who is now the newly elected Prime Minister, serving alongside a newly crowned King. In typical FU style, Francis already has his sites set on his next move, which is securing his position as Prime Minister by forcing a quick election to clean house. Unfortunately, the King and his views are getting in the way of this master plan. A fun novel revealing once again the deals made in politics and how easily it can be to make or break a career.
June 27, 2016
Si has disfrutado de House of Cards no te puedes perder su continuación. En mi opinión lo mejor de todo son los personajes, que en esta entrega con una personalidad mucho más intensa si cabe. El estilo sigue siendo el mismo, cercano y directo, y la historia no te decepcionará. Se va de cabeza a mis favoritos.
September 20, 2016
Първата книга беше невероятна, явно базирана до голяма степен на собствен опит. Тази обаче е леко в сферата на фантастиката и автора не се е справил достатъчно добре. Интересна е, но не са онези интриги от предната книга.
Но за сметка на това краят е изненадващ...
Но за сметка на това краят е изненадващ...
June 29, 2014
Woefully written. A rare example of the adaptation being infinitely better than the source material. Francis Urquhart is a fantastic character trapped within terrible prose.
December 14, 2016
По-слаба ми се видя втората част, героите и сюжетът са абсурдни. Ъркарт не прилича на себе си, все едно се разказва за напълно различен човек.
January 13, 2017
Muy entretenido aunque me gustó más el primero
http://entremontonesdelibros.blogspot...
http://entremontonesdelibros.blogspot...
December 15, 2024
I thought the previous book was OK, but wouldn't have moved onto the next one were it not for finding this edition cheap at a charity shop. I'm glad to have read it as I learnt some interesting political facts (i.e. the door to the PM's flat at Westminster does not have a lock) and the actual politics of it was interesting. Despite everything, I might read the final book in the trilogy because the intrinsic political cat and mouse game is fun in these, in quite a camp and self-aware way. It's not the sort of book I'd ever give more than 4*, but due to the way it has aged (badly) I just have to knock a few off that. A Times review on my copy of the book describes this as 'a good romp and gloriously cheeky', this may be a term used exclusively by middle-aged Tory males to describe comedy of a similar ilk to the Carry On films - in my world, sleaze. The book just comes across as sleazy, and a bit naff.
There is not a single female character in this book who is not a sexy* adulterous nymphomaniac.
* unless they're old; then they're a hag.
Not a one: they all exist to have sex, causing problems for men at the heart of the story. Even the sidest of side characters are reduced to this. Thank God Dobbs imagines the Queen dead (20 years prematurely) in this book, or I fear his latent horniness for the female sex may have wandered him into the arena of treason otherwise. Thankfully he leaves her Majesty's corpse alone.
We have the delight of our central protagonist, Sally Quinn - before anything else, we are told she is 'not unnaturally slim and punched as current fashion demanded, her beauty was more classical, the hips perhaps a half-inch too wide but all the curves defined', 'the skin of her face was smooth, darker and with more lustre than any English rose', with a 'sensuous nose' (we hear a lot about Sally Quinn's nose in this book, almost as much as her tits. Perhaps the author has some sort of nasal fetish). Her eyes don't 'sparkle like a woman's should'. This is perhaps 5% of the total descriptions we are given on her appearance. Her motto is, 'if sex is the currency of life then she would turn it into a business asset' which pretty much sums up her role in the story. Here is a quote from our female protagonist - she's a real woman, honest:
'Am I not old enough for you, Francis? You prefer middle-aged nymphomaniacs to good, clean-living young girls like me, is that it?'
Oh yes Michael. You've captured the very essence of womanhood here. This is exactly how women speak of themselves - and they all sleep their way up the corporate ladder, because men are trash and #feminism. This is genuinely the approach the author takes to his subject; his women are all 2 dimensional sex droids... but woke. Sally exists purely as a sex object in the novel, portrayed as some sort of corporate siren, but it's OK - it's not medieval - she's doing it because she's a boss b*tch. .
I was reading the book through my fingers when a gay character was introduced. To be fair I think the character and his relationship was intended to be treated with respect which I can appreciate, given the difficulties the author had with the above. At the very least this was not done badly, though there was the occasional duff comment. There was just a general sleazy filter over everything that made me cringe. I'd be enjoying it, then we'd get something truly abominably naff and I'd remember this was a book from the 90s.
Without all that, I would've enjoyed this much more. I appreciated the boldness to write from a prime minister's perspective, it's a lofty aim and it's done well enough. But I couldn't enjoy most of it.
There is not a single female character in this book who is not a sexy* adulterous nymphomaniac.
* unless they're old; then they're a hag.
Not a one: they all exist to have sex, causing problems for men at the heart of the story. Even the sidest of side characters are reduced to this. Thank God Dobbs imagines the Queen dead (20 years prematurely) in this book, or I fear his latent horniness for the female sex may have wandered him into the arena of treason otherwise. Thankfully he leaves her Majesty's corpse alone.
We have the delight of our central protagonist, Sally Quinn - before anything else, we are told she is 'not unnaturally slim and punched as current fashion demanded, her beauty was more classical, the hips perhaps a half-inch too wide but all the curves defined', 'the skin of her face was smooth, darker and with more lustre than any English rose', with a 'sensuous nose' (we hear a lot about Sally Quinn's nose in this book, almost as much as her tits. Perhaps the author has some sort of nasal fetish). Her eyes don't 'sparkle like a woman's should'. This is perhaps 5% of the total descriptions we are given on her appearance. Her motto is, 'if sex is the currency of life then she would turn it into a business asset' which pretty much sums up her role in the story. Here is a quote from our female protagonist - she's a real woman, honest:
'Am I not old enough for you, Francis? You prefer middle-aged nymphomaniacs to good, clean-living young girls like me, is that it?'
Oh yes Michael. You've captured the very essence of womanhood here. This is exactly how women speak of themselves - and they all sleep their way up the corporate ladder, because men are trash and #feminism. This is genuinely the approach the author takes to his subject; his women are all 2 dimensional sex droids... but woke. Sally exists purely as a sex object in the novel, portrayed as some sort of corporate siren, but it's OK - it's not medieval - she's doing it because she's a boss b*tch. .
I was reading the book through my fingers when a gay character was introduced. To be fair I think the character and his relationship was intended to be treated with respect which I can appreciate, given the difficulties the author had with the above. At the very least this was not done badly, though there was the occasional duff comment. There was just a general sleazy filter over everything that made me cringe. I'd be enjoying it, then we'd get something truly abominably naff and I'd remember this was a book from the 90s.
Without all that, I would've enjoyed this much more. I appreciated the boldness to write from a prime minister's perspective, it's a lofty aim and it's done well enough. But I couldn't enjoy most of it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 172 reviews