What do you think?
Rate this book
Royal Confinements: A Gynaecological History of Britain's Royal Family
Hardcover and jacket. 1980 St. Martin Press New York. 203 pages. The jacket show some wear on edges and tanning."8.9 - "6.0 size. The Book show tanning in flaps. Excellent condition, near to be like new. (Please see the pictures) Quick and safe shipping. M-01
- GenresRoyaltyNonfiction
205 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1980
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 23, 2013
Read this for research, ended up enjoying it for the entertainment value. 200 years of British royal history seen through the unique perspective of princesses and queens' pregnancy and childbirth experiences, with plenty of fascinating family and court drama thrown in for good measure. Not overly scholarly in tone, which I suppose could be seen as a negative, but that just depends on your reason for reading it. I liked that it was so easy to read, and the author's opinions and retrospective analysis of medical conditions was very interesting. Recommended for anyone even remotely interested in the topic.
June 1, 2020
Royal Confinements was first released in 1980 and has recently been re-released with an additional chapter focussing on a few cases post-Queen Victoria. It tracks the obstetric history of the British Royals from Catherine of Braganza to - originally - Queen Victoria. It is not limited to Queens.
Some had very tragic stories, such as Queen Anne and Princess Charlotte. Some are success stories. Royal Confinements is very interesting indeed and is one of the rare books that focusses on what was perhaps the most important part of royal life for women - the need to produce an heir.
Overall, the book is well-researched and quite easy to read. I did notice quite a few errors. Queen Victoria's mother is referred to as Mary, and although one of her names is certainly Marie, I have never seen her referred to as anything other than Victoire/Victoria. Her elder daughter from her first marriage is called Theodora while she was actually Feodora. The child born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in 1819 is referred to as the heir apparent to Great Britain and Hanover, even though he was still behind several uncles who could technically still produce children (sons in the case of Hanover, which had Salic law). Even if he was the only grandson in his generation, he would still be the heir presumptive until his father became King. It seems strange that while the publisher took the time to note that Queen Victoria was no longer the longest-reigning British, it did not notice some of these errors.
The additional chapter picks up with King Edward VII and briefly scoots through the main players of the 20th century into the early 21st century. Tragically, this book also falls foul with their use of "Princess Diana" and calling out the Duchess of Cambridge for "breaking the rule" for wanting to have her children in hospital. I thought we were past the time when women had no say in giving birth. The Duchess of Sussex is also referred to as "Meghan Markle" even after she is married and in the final paragraphs, their son's name is discussed - not sure how that was relevant.
I am not sure how the original book was served with this reprint. The book left an overall bad taste in my mouth despite its original author's (probable) best intentions.
Some had very tragic stories, such as Queen Anne and Princess Charlotte. Some are success stories. Royal Confinements is very interesting indeed and is one of the rare books that focusses on what was perhaps the most important part of royal life for women - the need to produce an heir.
Overall, the book is well-researched and quite easy to read. I did notice quite a few errors. Queen Victoria's mother is referred to as Mary, and although one of her names is certainly Marie, I have never seen her referred to as anything other than Victoire/Victoria. Her elder daughter from her first marriage is called Theodora while she was actually Feodora. The child born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in 1819 is referred to as the heir apparent to Great Britain and Hanover, even though he was still behind several uncles who could technically still produce children (sons in the case of Hanover, which had Salic law). Even if he was the only grandson in his generation, he would still be the heir presumptive until his father became King. It seems strange that while the publisher took the time to note that Queen Victoria was no longer the longest-reigning British, it did not notice some of these errors.
The additional chapter picks up with King Edward VII and briefly scoots through the main players of the 20th century into the early 21st century. Tragically, this book also falls foul with their use of "Princess Diana" and calling out the Duchess of Cambridge for "breaking the rule" for wanting to have her children in hospital. I thought we were past the time when women had no say in giving birth. The Duchess of Sussex is also referred to as "Meghan Markle" even after she is married and in the final paragraphs, their son's name is discussed - not sure how that was relevant.
I am not sure how the original book was served with this reprint. The book left an overall bad taste in my mouth despite its original author's (probable) best intentions.
June 10, 2008
I assume the ob/gyn detective work in this is good, but the history is sloppy at best--he says Prinny got married in 1894 for goodness sakes (at which point he had been dead for some thirty years already). Also, hilariously sexist.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews