Lesa Parnham's Reviews > Elizabeth the Queen: The Life of a Modern Monarch

Elizabeth the Queen by Sally Bedell Smith

by
2938683
's review
Jan 26, 12

bookshelves: 2012-books-read
Recommended for: Royal Watchers
Read from January 18 to 22, 2012, read count: 1

Parts were fascinating, parts were boring (one Prime Minister after another), I have read enough about the royal family to have doubts about how much of this is true. Quite possibly the author didn't want to make the queen angry. What happened to the c/c bracelet that Charles had for Camilla right before he was married to Diana? It is a proven fact that Charles carried on a relationship with Camilla throughout the marriage, Smith skipped over the part where while being interviewed on tv said he never loved Diana? I think Diana got a really bad rap in this book albeit she was not a completely innocent party.

As for Prince Phillip, his philandering has also been well documented.

As this book is written, the Queen is fascinating although a lot of the pomp and circumstance is ridiculous and should have been done away with a long time ago.

In the books favor, it was interesting to glimpse a private view of the Queen, the Queen Mum, Winston Churchill.

BTW all US presidents were mentioned with the exception of Jimmy Carter, whats that about???

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Elizabeth the Queen.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-8 of 8) (8 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

Glory Jimmy Carter was mentioned. Said he told the Queen Mother she reminded him of his mom and kissed her on the lips (which shocked her).


Lesa Parnham Must have been a 1-2 line mention, she goes on about the Bush family and the Reagans for quite a while and even gave a paragraph or 2 to Clinton.


message 3: by Angie (new) - added it

Angie Seffker Cope I think one must "read between the lines" but still, this is a fun read.


Lesa Parnham I really enjoyed it myself!


Charity There has never been any documentation about Philip having affairs. Just speculation. We will probably never know for sure, but to me, the lack of evidence indicates it's just rumors -- unlike Clinton, Kennedy, and so forth.


message 6: by Leopardlady (new) - added it

Leopardlady Renaud Speaking o charity,s response regarding the Kennedy,s and the Clinton,s affairs, the reason you never heard of Philip,s affairs is because he is not in a political seat he holds no electoral or voting position so no one cares what he does so no one bothers to out him to benefit their own cause. Which if u look at the royal family as it really is which is a "figure head" then no one really has cared bout them until Diana and look what the "establishment did to her to Try to make her conform. Being a descendant of the" Urquhart" Clan does not make me hate or certain other clans because they say I have to my family is steeped in British history. I just choose to accept people on their value as a human being not a monetary figure head.


Charity OR it means any speculation about Philip cheating on his wife is just that -- speculation. Without proof, there is no guilt. Don't you think that is a juicy enough story that SOMEONE would come up with some evidence if only to humiliate the royal family further? I do, so the fact that there is no evidence to me suggests maybe we shouldn't assume otherwise.


Cece IF Philip wandered-and that is a big IF-then he would have chosen women who also understood the rules and were discreet. Journalists and anti-monarchists have searched for evidence for years, though, with no luck.


back to top