The Last Queen: Elizabeth II's Seventy Year Battle to Save the House of Windsor

by Clive Irving

A timely and revelatory new biography of Queen Elizabeth (and her family) exploring how the Windsors have evolved and thrived, as the modern world has changed around them. Clive Irving’s stunning new narrative biography The Last Queen probes the question of the British monarchy’s longevity.  In 2021, the Queen Elizabeth II finally appears to be at ease in the modern world, helped by the new generation of Windsors. But through Irving’s unique insight there emerges a more fragile institution, whose extraordinarily dutiful matriarch has managed to persevere with dignity, yet in doing so made a Faustian pact with the media.   The Last Queen is not a conventional biography—and the book is therefore not limited by the traditions of that genre. Instead, it follows Elizabeth and her family’s struggle to survive in the face of unprecedented changes in our attitudes towards the royal family, with the critical eye of an investigative reporter who is present and involved on a highly personal level.

Genres: Biography, Nonfiction, History, Royalty, British Literature, Audiobook, Womens

367 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 5, 2021

Reviews

[Loretta · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unfortunate first book on the Royals that I picked up. Writing was dull and choppy. Jumped too quickly into Queen Elizabeth’s role without the benefit of the whole background story. Would not recommend this book to anyone. Hope I can find a real good book on this subject matter in the future.

[Jackie Latham · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really hated this author. He was a pretentious pseudo-intellectual. Apparently he held editorial jobs at almost every tabloid paper in London and was (in his mind) close friends with Lord Snowdon. The title is "The Last Queen" I thought his point was examples why she may be the end of the Monarchy. All he did was write small essays about historical events that he was writing about or knew someone who was intimate to the event. All these 'chapters' were, were anecdotes that had no relationship to his initial introduction to each chapter which had something to do with the Royal Family, and really he would jump around each essay that I got lost. Was he talking about Tony & Margaret's marriage, Charlies education or the Profumo affair???? At times the essays/chapters would just end. Like what the hell was the point of that? He was obsessed with Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon which was just weird. Oh and he apparently not only can't stand Prince Charles he is also not a fan of Prince Philip.

Basically what I got out of this book is that he has no clue what the Queen does and she is a simple country woman who doesn't stick her nose in to whatever is going on (which she is supposed to advise and consent with the Prime Ministers which they have all been very surprised how she is very aware and always has good advise) so that is bad. Prince Charles is very verbal on his beliefs about certain thing and he will be a horrible King because he doesn't know his place and that is bad. The Duchess of Cambridge is nice. Prince William?? Diana was human (only thing he got right) but of course she was also mistreated. Prince Harry is misunderstood and we should love him more.

This book made no sense. I think he just wanted to get on the Harry and Meghan wagon as well as the Crown. I also noticed that each area covered what was an episode to the Crown. If he wanted to show how much of an anti-monarchist is his than he failed. If you have a point have actual clear cut facts as to why say the Profumo affair is of such importance to the status of the Monarchy not just that the Queen is boring. Just a ridiculous, useless book.

[Darla · Rating 4 out of 5]

A seventy year reign is an ambitious topic for a book. Especially in light of the fact that Elizabeth II is still living and much of the documentation of her reign will remain sealed until her death. Irving suggests that "weeding" of those relevant documents could alter the picture we see at that time. So, this book covers this incredible piece of history using Irving's connections to varied press outlets. The people surrounding her in her household and the many government officials who have come and gone shed much light on the queen and how the palace has responded to historical events and evolved (or not). I am a fan of 'The Crown' and have read assorted historical fiction books like 'The Gown' (a favorite) and 'The Royal Governess' to name a few which have further illuminated this iconic historical figure. A really fun, little book came out last year entitled 'Our Rainbow Queen' showing the queen's wardrobe over time sorted by shade and included some random facts like what she always carries in her purse. It was a treat and I heartily recommend it! Anyway, back to this book. I found it to be quite enlightening and would recommend it to any of you who enjoy all things royal. One thing I think some forget is that Elizabeth II was in the midst of her formative years during the WW II conflict. Is it any wonder she is so accomplished at exhibiting the proverbial "stiff upper lip?" Even though I am from an entirely different generation, my Dutch heritage lends more to ice queen than drama queen. I feel a kinship with her in that way even though our economic situations and social spheres are poles apart. In closing, I do want to remind us all of the queen's memorable quote when holding a press conference regarding the COVID-crisis on Palm Sunday, 2020:
We should take comfort that while we may have more to endure, better days will return; we will be with our friends again; we will be with our families again; we will meet again.

Thank you to Pegasus Books and Edelweiss+ for a DRC in exchange for an honest review.

[Leo · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was intriguing and interesting for the wrong reason. I wanted a well written non fiction about they queen and other royals but felt it was a lot more of a gossiping kind of book. If that's what some wants that is fine. But I wanted something that felt more serious and less like hearing opinions from the author

[Sage · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. I have mixed feelings about this. I’m a huge British Royals fan, and I just didn’t jive with the structure of this book. I know it was marketed as not a traditional biography, and I did enjoy some of the chapters that provided context to Queen Elizabeth’s 70-year-reign. But I didn’t feel that the focus was on Elizabeth so much as on everything happening around her, much like The Crown. And that was disappointing.

I did appreciate Clive’s first hand knowledge of the Royals, knowing people in their circle, knowing Lord Snowden etc. That was really interesting, but at times I thought it was just meandering and I wanted to get back to Elizabeth. I found the WWII chapters about Edward & George, the Duke of Kent, so fascinating, and wanted more of Elizabeth’s perspective (as much as we can get from an incredibly private person.)

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reads much like the tv show the Crown. It goes through highlights of Queen Elizabeth's reign. I can't say there was anything shocking or particular new in this book but it was good nonetheless. I recommend if you like or are interested in the current House of Windsor.

[Cynda · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have no doubt that Queen Elizabeth II fought to save the House of Windsor, the fight was not well described here. Perhaps if I had been British citizen, maybe most particularly an English citizen I would have understood much more. As the book is written, there is not much discussion of background, of things necessary to make the argument more clear to me an American/non Brit.

However having watched much of the series The Crown, I am glad to see a little more clearly where the truth/lie line is laid.

[Joseph Papa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book feels more companion piece to Netflix's The Crown than a biography of the Queen. There are whole chapters that go by with barely a mention of her. I understand of course that The Queen *is* the monarchy, but it feels misleading to call this a book about her. That said, it is well and briskly written with good glimpses into England's and The House of Windsor's history.

[Doris · Rating 1 out of 5]

The description promised "A timely and revelatory new biography of Queen Elizabeth (and her family) exploring how the Windsors have evolved and thrived, as the modern world has changed around them." Instead, it's a tedious rehash of stale gossip. Maybe it gets better, but I'm not sticking around to find out.

[Lea Day · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stunned I finished reading this the day before the Queen’s passing.

[Kara Robertson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was hoping this would be about Queen Elizabeth II, but it is more about the scandals that took place during her reign (all of which can be seen on The Crown). I would suggest watching that instead.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. This is really Mr. Irving showing you why the British press will threaten the survival of the monarchy after Elizabeth II goes. Much of the book is just the usual tittle-tattle about various royals, including "Tony" and Princess Margaret, whom I think we are supposed to admire for their modernity but instead emerge as truly awful people, Charles and Camilla --- overweening privilege with feet, Diana (troubled, d'uh) and (all together now, folks) Harry and Meghan. There are a few potshots at Andrew, although apparently not nearly as many as he deserves. If Charles actually follows through on plans to streamline the HRH crowd, there won't be a "House of Windsor" --- which in any event is due to become the "House of Windsor-Mountbatten" with his accession. The idea is to limit the working royals to the King and his immediate heir, their wives and children, although at least one of them is now living in Malibu. This should prevent anymore Eugenies and Beatrices cluttering the landscape. There is simply no practical reason to keep them around. You could rent a smarter group to stand in if you think tourism requires a monarchical system. Irving seems to cling to the idea that the dynasty is somehow relevant to something or other, but since the prose stays resolutely at the People magazine level, he fails to make a case.

[Julie Chamaa · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is NOT a stunning new Royal biography of the last 70 years - that’s a job for a first rate historian. This was a trite recount with no analysis. Perhaps it would be more aptly named ‘Royals for Dummies’.

[Krista · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Last Queen" is a fast-reading biography of Elizabeth II and the Windsor reign to the modern day. Its author, Clive Irving, has a history of his own as a royal journalist and so is able to offer unique insights (and personal stories) of his experiences with the Royal Family and the Palace as a whole.

What's good: Despite dealing with oftentimes dense or complex subjects, the book is very readable and highly accessible to a broad audience. For the majority of the royals, we do leave the book with a sense of their personality. Irving is also not afraid to point out uncomfortable truths about the blurry public/private nature of the royal estates and funds; he also raises a significant point regarding the history of monetizing the monarchy as a brand, a trend born before all talk of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.

What's iffier: For anyone who has watched "The Crown," the book doesn't feel as if it really engages with anything new or different. Story by story, it feels as if it is following the plot of the episodes. Of course, both are based on the actual lived story of the Windsors--but at the same time, there are other topics to discover. For a book about a battle to save the house of Windsor, for example, I'd like to hear more about modern PR efforts with the Queen, including photos by Annie Leibovitz and the use of her during the Olympics in London--but I don't recall any of that.

In addition, Irving's personal take on some of the individuals emerges a bit bluntly at times. While he discusses individuals in a realistic fashion, typically not judging them, he does come out swinging with a statement regarding who should, or should not, be Elizabeth's successor.

Finally, the book is born of a specific conceit, arguing that Elizabeth is the "last queen" because the monarchy's role is fading while she has a string of male heirs behind her; at some point, like the Titanic rusting below the ocean depths, the monarchy will collapse, but until that time, Elizabeth's male heirs will be on the throne. I find this a reach, given the fact the book doesn't show the monarchy falling apart, and in fact the book mentions some royal families across Europe who still exist, but perhaps with less of the large-scale pomp and circumstances of the British monarchy--one doesn't have to throw out the Crown (an enormous source of revenue for Britain) or fully embrace it. Overall, therefore, the claim that Elizabeth is the last Queen feels like it is here just for the sake of the title of the book.

Overall, I enjoyed the book and I particularly liked Irving's additions about his life in journalism.

(This review is based on an ARC provided by Edelweiss.)

[Claudia · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you're looking for some insight into Queen Elizabeth II of England, this is likely not going to answer most of any of your questions.

Clive Irving is a journalist that spent most of his career in various publications in London and getting a flicker of insight when best friend Anthony Armstrong-Jones married Princess Margaret, the queen's sister. He talks of at least two generations back to Elizabeth's grandparents as well as a few references to Victoria and Albert and brings the family forward to the exit of Harry and Meghan to Canada and eventually the United States.

Seriously, I didn't get much insight into the so-called "battle" as much as it was insight into how Elizabeth has 'learned' to adjust some of her preconceived notions of what being the Queen of Great Britain means. Especially how drastically the world has changed over the decades as well as the unprecedented change in the attitudes of the people toward the monarchy. Holding her family together even actions 'acceptable' or at least, overlooked and concealed by staff decades ago, are being rejected and uncovered by media that will no longer consider the royal family off limits.

It was more of a light-weight biography of the house of Windsor. Never really got much insight into Elizabeth - although a very public figure - who vigorous attempts to keep her family and private life hidden behind the palace walls while performing the public duties she has shouldered for over 69 years. Don't know many people who would have stayed at any job for such a long period of time.

2021-049

[Daenerys Targaryen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very dry and boring. It felt like I am in college reading a text book. I always thought that Britain should be a republic and monarchy should be abolished/ pensioned off as there is very little to recommend the current members of that family. No worthwhile education that is not bought by money, they made no sacrifices for the country, no contribution to arts or sciences - in short they have nothing to recommend them as an individual except what money and their pedigree could buy. They are no different from any other rich family except they get to rule a country. Being a "royal" is a full time job. I remember reading somewhere that "it is time for Britain to get up from its knees and stand up for itself"- mocking a tradition of curtsying (twisting your legs behind you somehow) when you see the upper classes.

The book itself while being full of historical facts failed to string the reader along. Especially the modern, young readers who has very little patience.

[Emily Bolognese · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don’t really get this book. It’s mostly just a rehashing of stories about the royal family that most people with any passing familiarity with the news already knows. It sort of felt like a summation of the crown honestly

[Christina McLain · Rating 5 out of 5]

For all those obsessed with the British monarchy and with recent British history, this book is a must. Written by Clive Irving, a longtime Fleet Street, sometime tabloid journalist, this book could be an addition to the acclaimed television series The Crown, if there weren't already a companion book written. What more could we actually care to learn about the royal family, whose dysfunction has been widely documented and dissected since the early days of Lady Di? Well quite a lot, it would seem.
Although this book is sarcastic and occasionally bitchy, the author is serious enough in intent. He doesn't, it seems, just want to shock and titilate, but to prove his thesis that the way the Windsors have dealt with most problems both public and private have not endeared them to the British public. And he believes that few of its leading lights, including the Queen herself, have the nous to lead the monarchy kicking and screaming into the postmodern age.
Thr trouble according to Irving, really began with the terrible parenting of King George V and his frosty wife Queen Mary in the early part of the 20th century. The duo managed to bring up four sons without attending to their emotional or psychological needs--at all. The Queen's father George VI was lucky enough to claim the Queen Mother for his wife and enjoyed the happiness of domesticity and the help of a stalwart companion to compensate for his onerous role as a man who never wanted nor was ever prepared to be king. His brothers were not so lucky, especially David who after a brief reign as King Edward VII, gave up the throne for Wallis Simpson and spent the rest of his life as a spoiled errant jet settter and fascist sympathizer. The devotion of George VI and his wife to Britain and to thei family both during and after WWII led the institution to stay poplular throughout the 40s and 50s but even then there were cracks in the facade. Princess Margaret, the Queen's spoiled, wilful younger sister suffered from the humiliation of not being allowed to marry the man she loved because he was divorced. She ended up as a bitter unhappy woman who drank too much and alienated most of those around her.
In the 60s, Britain like nearly all of western society underwent seismic social changes but the Queen herself, despite her exemplary devotion to duty, seemed to have a blind spot, a coldness, in her personality, which did not always endear her to her subjects. In 1966, the disastrous deaths of many in the Welsh village of Aberfan led both Prince Philip and her brother-in-law Tony Snowden to rush to the area and provide succor and aid to the anguished families there. The Queen didn't arrive there until a week later and was seen by many as selfish and uncaring. Later her puzzling behavior would be repeated in the aftermath of Princess Diana's death when she and most of the royals stayed at Balmoral instead of rushing to London to view the thousands of mourners, some of whom were very angry over her absence. It was left to Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister to cajole Her Majesty into returning.
According to Irving, the advent of ruthless tabloid journalism and the Crown's failure to address and embrace changing mores have both led to a growing lack of respect and an indifference to the institution. He wonders too, if the ascension of Prine Charles after the Queen's death will make things worse for he sees him as a man too set in his ways and too spoiled by half to do the job of turning things around. Recent crises in the family--Harry and Meghan's defection, Prince Andrew's refusal to accept responsibility for his scandalous, criminal behaviour--haven't helped.
Only the advent of William and Kate who have successfully woven duty with modernity into their lives may save the Monarchy, according to Irving. But it just may be a case of too little, too late. Charles, given the family's genetic code may live to be ninety making William an old man by the time he ascends to the throne. And who in Britain will really care by then?This is an absorbing, opinionated, engrossing read proving perhaps that ex-King Faroukh of Egypt was wrong when he said that there would always be five queens--the Queen of Clubs, the Queen of Diamonds, the Queen of Spades, the Queen of Hearts and the Queen of England. Time will tell.

[Tollula · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great insight to the Queen's world from the point of view of a newspaper man that covered her reign. He used his inside knowledge of the press to create an image of her majesty's world. Was enjoying it until the book became very misogynistic.

I disliked how he wrote about Margaret Thatcher and the Queen. He would describe their work ethic and beliefs but in a "less than" the men in power. He kept describing Thatcher as a shrewd politician with cold beliefs like those of Churchill but somehow hers made her unfeeling while Churchill made him a great leader. He was also biased when it came to Anthony Armstrong-Jones. He clearly was his friend and worked with him at the newspaper so when it came to discussing his and Princess Margaret's marriage, he went into great detail about her indiscretions but failed to mention any of his.

Diana's affairs are very detailed while Camila's affair with Charles was casually mentioned and accepted as fact. Described Charles as being "monogamous" with Camila. Yea, cheating on your wife with your long term gf does not make you monogamous. 😡 He is set to paint Diana as a whore, a siren that tricks people to like her. He kept trying to give examples of how she manipulated people to not know her really. The saint walking mine fields or this "whore" on a yacht with millionaire boyfriend. FU! She can be both. She was trying to find love and do good in the world at the same time you misogynist!

His description of Charles and comparing of him to his great uncle the Duke of Windsor was so off base. Making Charles seem like he was a cool badass like his uncle that was just a misunderstood Royal who spoke out politically, foppish dresser who followed his heart is so wrong! By all accounts Charles is a dullard that the Duke would have nothing to do with as an individual. You can tell Charles was dressed by his nannies (or some other servant. Certainly not a trendsetter). He was lame like his grandfather George VI. I would argue that Prince Andrew is more like the Duke in that he expected his titles to protect him no matter his actions. Be it working with the Nazis or being a pedophile.

Tony's (Lord Snowdon) opinions pop up so much in the different chapters that have nothing to do with him that this should have been titled "The Last Lord Snowdon: my bbf".

I do like how he represents Charles as "He is that most dangerous of meddlers who combines ignorance and opinion as a guide to his actions." God help the UK.

[Tekla György (teklakonyvei) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Az utolsó királynő – Hetven év küzdelem a monarchiáért pont a címben szereplő II. Erzsébetet mellőzi, viszont egészen informatív képet fest a királyi családról a 20. század viharaiban. A szerző a monarchiát övező politikai- és bulvárbotrányokat szedte össze, viszont ezeket kissé szenzációhajhász, vagy inkább firkász stílusban igyekszik tálalni. Kitér sok olyan fiaskóra is, melyeknek véleményem szerint már semmilyen hatása nincs a monarchiára a 2020-as években – noha akkoriban, több évtizeddel ezelőtt kétségtelen, hogy hatalmas visszhangot keltettek.

Nekem pont ez a stílus, illetve a folyamatos ugrálás nem tetszett a könyv felépítésében. És igen, az elvárások, mert ha a cím azt indikálja, hogy a királynőről fogok olvasni, és gyakorlatilag mindenki másról olvasok, csak róla nem, akkor kevésbé kellemes szájíz marad bennem a kötettel kapcsolatban.

Clive Irving könyve a királyi családot övező, vagy őket valamilyen szinten érintő botrányokról szól, noha ha az összképet nézem, akkor sokkal inkább egy kis kalauz az Egyesült Királyság 20. századi politikai- és bulváreseményeiről. Legyen szó akár a Profumo-ügyről, vagy arról, hogy hogyan keletkeztek a tabloid újságok Londonban. Bár Irving mentségére szóljon, az olvasó kap néhány royal-portét is tőle, bár nem túl koherensen.

Bővebben: https://www.gyorgytekla.hu/2022/10/cl...

[MaKensie Tully · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel like this was mostly the author’s opinion combined with him throwing his weight around throughout points in history when the royal family hit various scandals. The timeline also isn’t linear and jumps around a lot. There’s events mentioned with the assumption you already know the background on it. I watched a Netflix documentary before starting this VERY LONG audible which helped me gain enough foundation for this to make sense/be interesting. Otherwise I think most people would be confused.

All that being said, this isn’t a read for someone who’s just curious about the Queen with no prior knowledge. You will be confused and be doing a lot of googling.

[Robbin Hanson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This reads more like a biography on the author than the Queen. He interjects himself into every chapter. I’ve never read a more judgmental biography! I rather read facts than his ridiculous opinions.

[WM D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The last Queen was a great book. It gave me new information on the royal family

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like I learned more about journalism over the course of the monarchy than I learned about the monarchy but still a very interesting read.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love books about the royal family. This latest one was as much about the author and his history with the royal family as it was about the Queen and the future of the royal family. Still I enjoyed it.

[Jeff Bozell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Remarkable book with insight only Clive Irving can provide.

QEII is very good at what she does.

[Michael Pearce · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh.

[Robyn Lobsinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

An unofficial companion guide to Netflix’s ‘The Crown.’ Title is misleading, as the books focus is on the Windsor’s as a whole. Was not a huge fan of the writing style and sometimes drifted when attempting to read certain chapters. I would go back and read this along with watching The Crown (knowing full well the show is a drama, based on many real accounts).

[hpboy13 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a bit of a contradiction – an engrossing read and a let-down all in one.

Minus the fact that it purports to be nonfiction, whereas The Crown is a fictional dramatization, this book is VERY reminiscent of Netflix’s hit TV show. It’s broken up into chapters that track pretty neatly with Crown episodes, covering many of the same events. For history buffs and fans of the TV show, this is very good stuff, offering additional depth to the events that unfolded on screen. It made me respect Peter Morgan even more for how meticulous the show has been.

The question is whether the events that these books have in common are present because they carry such obvious significance to Queen Elizabeth II’s story… of whether Irving was inspired by the TV show that he gently scoffs at throughout the book. I pondered that question throughout the book, but then got a pretty clear answer at the end: it’s the latter. That’s because when the book gets to the point where The Crown is up to now – the ‘80s, with Diana and Margaret Thatcher clashing with the Queen – the book runs out of steam.

Suddenly, the detailed minutiae of events disappears. With brief mentions of the Queen’s “annus horribilis,” the book hurries to the death of Diana – well-trod ground for Peter Morgan in his film The Queen. Then the book fastforwards through all of the 2000s and most of the 2010s, picking back up with the Harry/Meghan drama. Lots of incredibly consequential events – Charles marrying Camilla, William and Kate, the 60-year jubilee, Brexit – don’t warrant a passing mention. An entire third of the Queen’s reign is completely glossed over, as Irving apparently lacks inspiration without Peter Morgan’s scripts to guide him.

When Irving is firing on all cylinders, the way he does during the really old history (1950s and 1960s), it’s very compelling stuff. But he gets bogged down in details of the world of newspapers, and his own turbulent career path through them. At the beginning, these asides are nominally about the Queen’s relationship with the press. As the book goes on, the asides get much longer, drop many more names, and abandon all pretense of being relevant to the Windsors. If Mr. Irving wanted to write his memoirs, I’m sure there’s be a niche audience for them, but it seems disingenuous to sneak them into a book about the Queen.

The book also never quite addresses its entire hook: the title of “The Last Queen.” That promises a discussion of how the monarchy has or hasn’t changed with Elizabeth II, and what we can look for after she is gone. Irving spends a chapter or two eviscerating Charles’s character, barely devotes a page to William, and does not engage at all with the topic of how they might change with the monarchy once they are leading The Firm. This, perhaps, was my biggest disappointment with the book – how it went out not with a bang, but with a whimper about the “spares,” Prince Andrew and Prince Harry.

Fans of The Crown wanting to brush up on their history will probably enjoy this book, but on the whole, it never quite lives up to its very enticing premise.

[Desirae · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clive Irving, a columnist for the Daily Beast and is a pioneer of investigative journalism and was acquainted with royal personages like Antony Armstrong Jones (Tony) who married Princess Margaret. Irving writes about Queen Elizabeth, the longest reigning monarch in British history. Irving states: "No British monarch has faced such an extended and turbulent period of change." The author's career as a journalist has run parallel with Queen Elizabeth's reign. Through all the scandals, "It seems that the monarchy would not survive, but somehow it did." This book covers various events including scandals: Princess Margaret deciding not to marry divorced Peter Townsend; her relationship and later marriage to Anthony Armstrong Jones (who became Earl Snowdon) and the scandals of that marriage; Prince Philip as consort and his marriage to Elizabeth II; the Queen and her Prime Ministers; the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and the abdication; Prince Charles and his life and work as heir to the throne; the revelations about Lord Mountbatten; Charles and Diana's marriage and divorce; the lives of William and Harry; and Prince Andrew's association with Jeffrey Epstein and his disastrous TV interview; the marriage and divorce of Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew; and the impact on the Queen of the death of Princess Diana. The media coverage of the royals is explored and its change throughout the years: "Royal journalism," according to the author," became the most profitable stream of celebrity journalism, and the royal family assumed the role of a compulsively viewable soap opera." Overall, a very insightful book about the royal family and how it survived change and indiscretions of some of the royal family. Some information about Diana needs correction though. The author maintains that she Diana had an "affair" with Barry Mannakee, her police bodyguard. He cites the Settelen interview but leaves out the question that Settelen asked Diana re: Mannakee "was it sexual?" and Diana said NO. Also, the author wrote that Dr. Khan terminated his affair with Diana. Khan himself was interviewed and said Diana cut off contact with him by changing her phone number, so she dropped him. I also wonder about the sentence "If Charles had gathered as many lovers as Diana, he would have been stigmatize as a serial lecher." Charles sowed wild oats and did have many women in his life including the tragic Lady Dale Tryon who was his married mistress in the seventies and he was serious about several other women besides Diana and Camilla and proposed to at least two other women. He also had many women in his life and followed Mountbatten's advice to sow wild oats. He also writes "Diana's affairs were flagrantly public." They were not since it was only when Hewitt cooperated with author Pasternack, did the public know about this. Diana and Dr. Khan notoriously did not go public and he was ushered in secret to Kensington Palace. HE also maintains Diana was a "bad loser." In fact, Charles cooperated with writers like Penny Junor and Sally Bedell Smith who were Charles sympathizers and Diana did not come out looking well (this after her death) . Charles also made a point of telling his biographer he never loved Diana. So he was not exactly Squeaky Clean. I also don't agree that the reaction to Diana's death was "collective hysteria." In fact, the public was wondering why the Queen did not comment until persuaded by Tony Blair. The last few chapters discuss more recent events like Harry and Meghan leaving the UK and the Queen's protection of Prince Andrew in light of the Epstein scandal. Those who are fans of the Crown should read this book and also those interested in royalty.