Laure Permon was born in 1785 in Montpellier, France. Her family was originally from Corsica and were friends of the Bonapartes. During the Directory, the family lived in Paris, and her brother Albert was friends with Napoleon.

In 1800, Laure married one of Napoleon’s aides-de-camp, General Junot. She was an intimate member of Napoleon’s court as First Consul and was an eyewitness to key events during his rise to power and reign as emperor. In 1807, as a thank-you for services rendered in the Portuguese campaign, Napoleon made Junot and Laure the Duc and Duchesse d’Abrantès. But Junot and Napoleon both had a terrible year in 1814 – Napoleon because he was finally defeated and exiled, and Junot because he died (probably of suicide, after descending into madness).

After Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, Laure was poor and desperate with no husband a lot of mouths to feed (she and Junot had at least seven kids, from what I could gather in these excerpts). She befriended the novelist Honoré de Balzac, who encouraged her to write her memoirs. And holy cow, did she ever take his advice. There were either 18 total volumes or 7, published from 1831-1835. Le Bourhis’s intro says 18; Bernier’s says 7 – different editions, perhaps? Laure Junot died a few years later, in 1838 at the age of 52.

In his introduction, Bernier notes that her unabridged memoirs contain a lot of filler – stories are repeated, and lots of ancillary information gets thrown in. Why? Because writers were paid by the line, which reminds me of Dickens and his serialized novels. Hence the reason for an abridged version of the memoirs. Okay, makes total sense.

But I'm left with the feeling that someone dropped the ball in terms of selecting what to include because this book felt choppy, uneven, and incomplete. Is that how the memoirs feel when read as a whole? I wish I could tell you. This complaint might be completely unfounded, but there’s no way to know without reading all 7 volumes.

Also, in the foreword to this book, le Bourhis calls her writing “racy,” “intimate,” “authentic” and “spicy.” (xi) I didn't get a good sense of that. Was I just off for the couple days I read this book? Maybe. Intimate, I get – for many scenes, you do feel like you’re right there next to Napoleon. But I didn’t get the sense of much racy or spicy material here. YMMV.

Tidbits

• Laure refused to sleep with Napoleon, despite his strange way of coming on to her – by appearing in her bedroom at 5 am several mornings in a row.
• Napoleon pinched the ear of people if he liked them. It annoyed the crap out of everyone, including Laure.
• At Napoleon’s coronation in 1804, she wore black in protest at not being selected as one of Josephine’s ladies-in-waiting. (viii)
• In 1808, Laure had an affair with Metternich, the Austrian ambassador. Caroline Bonaparte stole him from her – she was a better source of information for him.
• Junot was appointed French ambassador to the Portuguese court at Lisbon, and Laure went with him. She also went with him to Madrid when he was posted to Spain during the Spanish campaign. She did not go with him when, in 1812 or early 1813, he was appointed Governor of Venice.
• Laure describes (with obvious jealousy) the gorgeous diamond earrings of the Princess of Brazil: “Her ear-drops were perfectly unique; I never saw anything like them. They consisted of two diamond pears, perfectly round, of the purest water, and about an inch in length. The two brilliants which surmounted the drops were likewise superb. The exquisite beauty of these jewels, combined with the extreme ugliness of the person who wore them, produced an indescribably strange effect…” (284)
• Laure refused to see Napoleon during the Hundred Days – she was over it.

Caveats

• Seemingly uneven selection of content. The bulk of the book covers the period before Napoleon made himself emperor. On page 312 of 387, we’re only in 1806. His second wife, Marie Louise, is barely present – I’d been hoping to get a clearer view of her through Laure, but it didn’t happen – mostly because Laure was in Burgos when the wedding happened. She shares what her friends wrote to her, but the information isn’t firsthand. The final section of the book, titled The Fall of Napoleon, begins on page 369 and contains just two excerpts: Laure’s reaction to the death of Bessières and Duroc, and a description of court on January 1, 1814 that segues into a summary of his fall – 2 pages, tops, followed by an editor’s summary of Napoleon’s fall and exile. That may very well be how Laure’s memoirs appear in unedited form – if so, this caveat may be unfounded. But as it stands, the coverage appears imbalanced; a simple editor’s note saying “That’s all she wrote, folks,” would suffice to keep me from feeling like I'm missing something.
• The introductions mention things and people you don’t get to see. Laure’s affair with Metternich? Off the page. Eugene de Beauharnais, who was “seducing every woman in sight,” is off the page, too. (11) Bummer.
• I feel like I’ve read a more complete version of at least one of the included anecdotes. Without going on a wild goose chase to find the original, I’ll have to summarize it for you. Pauline Bonaparte had a rivalry with Josephine in terms of being the most sumptuously dressed woman around. Once time, Pauline – determined to outdo Josephine – put on the most lavish outfit she could, draped in fine fabrics and jewels and positively dripping with glamour. In this book, that anecdote ends here. I am almost positive I’ve seen that anecdote somewhere else, but with a different ending: on this occasion, Josephine got word of Pauline’s outfit in advance, and wore something devastatingly simple to make her look gauche and overdone. Are these two different incidents…or did this volume edit out that ending?

Should You Read This Book?

I’m torn.

Even at the risk of reading repetitive, unnecessary filler prose, I think I might rather take my chances with the real thing.

Maria Carolina of Bourbon Two-Sicilies was born at Caserta in 1798. Her great-grandfather was the first Bourbon king of Naples and Sicily, and her aunt was Maria Amelia, the future wife of Louis-Philippe d’Orléans. Called Carolina, she grew up during the turbulence of the Napoleonic wars.

In 1816, once the Bourbon dynasty had been restored to the French throne, the new King Louis XVIII’s nephew asked for Carolina’s hand in marriage. Carolina (now called Marie-Caroline) and the Duc de Berry had two children, a girl and a boy – the boy born after his father’s assassination.

But in 1830, the July Revolution drove the last Bourbon king, Charles X, from the throne…making way for his cousin, Louis-Philippe, to become King of the French (not King of France, mind you). With Charles X went his daughters-in-law, Marie-Caroline and Marie-Thérèse, the Duchesse d’Angoulême. But to Legitimists, Louis-Philippe was nothing but a usurper and the next king should have been Marie-Caroline’s son, Henri (Henri V).

Marie-Caroline couldn’t sit around and do nothing. She was determined to find a way to get her son his throne back. So she sailed to France and launched an insurrection designed to do just that. Long story short, it didn’t go well. Hampered by missed opportunities, lack of foreign support, and bad communication among her team members, Marie-Caroline found herself running from the law, disguised as a man, moving from safehouse to safehouse to avoid arrest.

Then she agreed to meet a man who called himself Hyacinthe de Gonzague. In reality, he was Simon Deutz – the son of the chief rabbi of France who had converted to Catholicism. In 1832, Simon betrayed her to the authorities and they nabbed her. I won’t tell you how, because it’s a pretty darn good story.

But the media firestorm that ensued sparked a wave of anti-Semitism against Deutz, despite his conversion. The duchess was a romantic figure, and her devotion to her son’s cause sparked the French national imagination. Although most people weren’t willing to rise up and help put her son on the throne, they were suddenly really pissed off to see her betrayed. So they fixated on Deutz’s Jewishness, marking him as an “other” and contrasting his impure motives (money) with the duchess’s pure motives (her son’s birthright). The Dreyfus Affair would later build on the foundation of virulent public anti-Semitism laid down in 1832.

Of course, the duchess’s scandal wasn’t just that she got caught. There’s a whole other layer of scandal that emerged in the months following her arrest. I won’t get into the details here, but it’s well worth reading about in this book.

Caveats

None.

This book is very well-written. The prose flows well and Samuels weaves an interesting narrative that presents both main figures – the duchess and Deutz – in a fair, balanced light. There’s also a good mix of direct quotes and summary (important when the nature of the newspaper accounts of the time become part of the story themselves).

Should You Read It?

Yes. Whether you’re interested in the Bourbons or not, it’s a fascinating read. If all you’re after is royal scandal, this might veer too much into social issues for you, but the story overall is so interesting that I’d urge you to just go with it.

This book was first published in Britain in 1943, and in America the following year. It contains Bella Fromm’s diary entries from the years 1930 – 1938. At that point, she left Germany for America…and the Nazis followed her. The last chapter reads like a spy novel, as she explains how Nazi assassins followed her to New York City and the police and the U.S. Anti-Sabotage Squad kept her safe.

Bella Fromm, you see, was Jewish.

In the 1930s, she was a fixture on the Berlin social scene as a high-society newspaper columnist for the Vossische Zeitung. She knew all the diplomats and their wives, as well as government officials, nobles, royals, you name it. She also saw the Nazis for what they were. She never believed – as many others in high society circles did – that Hitler was the savior of Germany. Her diary entries reveal exactly what she thought about the Nazis. In a note added to one of her entries, she calls Hitler “that Austrian psychopath” (20).

Bella’s diplomatic connections made her untouchable, for a time. Eventually, however, all her international friends told her it was time to leave Berlin – the actions against Jews were getting more egregious and more unavoidable, even for those with friends in high places. Bella had always been exposed to the anti-Semitism of the upper classes – she recounts a quick conversation with Count von der Schulenberg in 1929 when he bitched about a Jewish player winning the Davis Cup. Bella’s spot-on riposte: “He won for Germany. Would you have preferred to have the Englishman win?” (20)

Bella stayed in Germany as long as she could because she used her connections to help get other Jews out, and she felt guilty abandoning that work. When the Nazis took over the newspaper she wrote for, she took a friend’s suggestion and changed career paths: she became a wine broker. Then, in 1938, the Nazis removed that avenue, too: “Now one must have a permit for the sale of wine. These permits are not issued to non-Aryans.” (264) When Nazi brown-shirts began staking out her house, she realized it was time to leave.

But first, she sent pages of her diary out of the country with friends. Once she’d escaped, she turned to an American friend to get them published and help show the world what had happened – and was still happening – to Germany.

NOTE: Some scholars think these aren’t actual diary entries, but reconstructions from memory and/or research that she put together once she reached the U.S. True or not, that doesn’t affect how I feel about this book or how enthralling it was to read. YMMV.

Interesting Tidbits

• On inflation in 1923: “When you go shopping, you have to carry your banknotes in suitcases…In order to mail a letter inside Germany, I had to pay several million marks for a stamp.” (13)
• On Crown Prince Wilhelm in 1931: “Crown Prince Wilhelm…invited me to have tea with him in the clubhouse. Knowing what happens to the reputation of any woman seen with the Crown Prince, I was compelled to refuse. I told him why. He smiled and was a pretty good sport about it.” (32)
• On the nobility accepting the Nazis in 1932: “Society slowly gets accustomed to the originally plebeian National Socialist movement. People from the upper crust are turning to Hitler. They close their ears to his constant blasts against the aristocrats and the privileged classes, the feine Leute. My grandfather had a simple description of that type of turncoat: ‘You spit in his eye and he asks if it rains.’ ” (42)
• On Hitler refusing to be recorded in 1932: “I hear Hitler absolutely declines to have his speeches recorded on sound films. A member of the foreign press asked Brueckner, his adjutant, for the reason. He shrugged his shoulders. ‘You can’t alter a sound film,’ he said.” (46)
• When Bella met Hitler in 1933: “I followed Adolf with my eyes everywhere, not wanting to miss any of his debut. There comes a sudden flash into his eyes that leaves on chilled. It reveals the diabolical and sadistic streak in Hitler’s twisted makeup. A glimpse of this expression leaves one no doubt as to the hopelessness of expecting any humane understanding or mercy from this bellowing, blustering, dangerous egotist who obviously cloaks his inferiority complex with his cruel despotism.” (99)
• On being spied upon in Berlin in 1935: “I became quite outspoken about conditions in general. Signora Cerruti sprang to her feet, a look of alarm swept over her attractive face…’Bella, for God’s sake, there is a telephone in the boudoir. How can you be so thoughtless! You know that diplomats’ telephone wires are also tapped. The Netherlands Minister had workmen from Holland. For three days, they were busy isolating every wire inside the house.’ ” (204)
• On fake prisoners in concentration camps being shown to foreigners in 1937: “The trick was an ordinary Nazi routine with which we were so familiar that it always seemed extraordinary to us that any human being with ordinary intelligence could possibly be taken in by it. The real prisoners were hidden away, and healthy, strapping Storm Troopers in prison clothes took their places.” (246)
• On the Nazis sending assassins to New York to kill her in 1939: “Next morning, Jimmy [one of her bodyguards] drove, and he chose an even more unusual road, avoiding the park altogether. To my questions, they always gave evasive answers. I noticed that they were constantly looking in the mirror and watching what was going on behind us….A few days later, it became clear to me that we were being followed by the same car. From the second week on, I also became aware that behind the car following us there was a third car, and we crossed the streets of New York in this procession.” (296)

A Prescient Quote

Presented with zero commentary. Make of it what you will.

“Even now there are those who say it cannot happen here in America. But it can…It can happen anywhere, unless you do something about it ruthlessly. The secret of these so-called supermen is bluff; their potent formula is to weaken through fear. Their courage is the courage of the stronger who overrun the weaker. Call their bluff, stand up against them before it is too late, and it will all melt away. They are only men, cruel men, power-greedy men; and then can be disposed of the way any band of criminals is disposed of.” (6)

Should You Read It?

Absolutely.

There’s something here for everyone. Only interested in society gossip? There’s plenty here. Only interested in details about the Nazi rise to power? This book has you covered. It’s also a fascinating look at diplomatic society – the players, the parties, and an insider’s knowledge of what diplomats could and couldn’t do.

I enjoyed this book so much more than I thought I would and I highly recommend it.

Patreon Supporters Got Even More Tidbits!

No time to read, but want some more fascinating glimpses of Bella’s book? Become a Patreon supporter for just $1/month and you can access my recent post, with 21 of the most interesting tidbits from the book!

Click or tap here to support me on Patreon!

I won’t go into too much detail about this book, because there’s no immediate royal connection. I read it more as background on Italy during the World War II period. But it was a fascinating read and it had several key perspectives that overlap with other royal stories I’m working on.

• Sippenhaft. This is the ancient German concept of “blood guilt,” meaning that if you commit a crime, your family shares the guilt. Hitler applied this concept to the family members of the July 1944 conspirators, rounding them up and arresting them even though most of them had nothing to do with (and no knowledge of) the conspiracy. The heroine of this story, Fey,  was imprisoned with several of Claus von Stauffenberg’s relatives, for example. How does this connect to royal women? Hitler believed Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria was in on the plot, even though he wasn’t. So, thanks to sippenhaft, Hitler ordered Rupprecht’s wife and kids arrested. Crown Princess Antonia of Bavaria spent much of the war in a Nazi prison hospital under arrest, while her kids were imprisoned in concentration camps.
• Buchenwald. For a brief time, Fey and her fellow captives were imprisoned in Buchenwald – in the very same building as Princess Mafalda of Savoy (she died in August of 1944; Fey wasn’t there until after Mafalda had died). But the information about camp life for important political prisoners was valuable. It gave me more of a perspective of what Mafalda’s imprisonment might have been like.
• Plots to kill Hitler. Because so much of Fey’s experience hinges on the famous 1944 plot to kill Hitler, Bailey spends a little bit of time on previous plots to kill Hitler – especially since the same names crop up as being involved. This includes a plot by Tresckow, the chief of operations at Army Group Center on the Eastern Front. Spoiler alert – his plot failed, and he killed himself with a hand grenade. Joachim Kuhn, an infantry officer, tried to protect Tresckow’s reputation by reporting that Tresckow’s death had been caused by a partisan attack. When the Red Army captured Kuhn, they sent him to the Butyrskaya prison. That’s where he met Christian Ludwig of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the son of Grand Duke Friedrich Franz IV and Princess Alexandra of Hanover. Christian described meeting Kuhn and hearing his story in his memoirs (read my review & tidbits here).

Random Interesting Tidbit

Fey’s husband’s grandmother was an American heiress named Cora Slocomb (1860-1944), born in New Orleans. She believed in social justice and women’s emancipation. When she married into the Brazzà family, she brought a strong sense of responsibility to her role. Rather than giving the impoverished local women money, she wanted to give them skills and opportunities that would help them keep earning in the future.

She founded seven lace-making schools to that end. Later, she founded a toy factory that hired local women. In 1906, she had some sort of mental breakdown and never recovered. She lived the rest of her days in a private asylum.

A Nitpicky Question that Has Nothing to Do with the Subject of This Book

Okay, so there’s a picture of Himmler in this book, taken just after he committed suicide. He’s lying dead on the ground, looking relatively peaceful. He’s dressed in a shirt, wearing his glasses, and the lower half of his body is covered by a blanket. The caption reads: “Himmler’s corpse, photographed by a British Army official, minutes after his death from cyanide poisoning.”

But in the text, Bailey describes Himmler’s capture, interrogation, and death. He was stripped naked, she said, to avoid this exact situation. Army doctor Captain Wells searched him, and then Colonel Michael Murphy attempted to remove what appeared to be a vial of poison in his mouth. Himmler bit down on his hand and punctured the vial. Murphy and another man threw him to the ground and tried to prevent him from swallowing, but it didn’t work. Himmler died on the floor. Major Whittaker said, ‘We turned it on its back, put a blanket on it and came away.’ (401) The body, Bailey reports, was then wrapped in camouflage netting and tied up with telephone wire for a secret burial.

So…stupid question…who dressed Himmler in the shirt he’s wearing for that photo? And why? Was a shirtless man too scandalous? Or does this discrepancy indicate something amiss with this story of his death?

These are the nitpicky details my brain can’t help getting stuck on. You have my apologies for even bringing this up…but if this kind of thing is annoying to read, imagine how annoying it is for me to live with all day every day.

Caveats

• This is incredibly nitpicky, but the title “castle” barely exists. The jacket copy says “she lived with her husband, the Italian aristocrat Detalmo Pirzio-Biroli, in a castle on an estate in the north of Italy…” But the castle, Castello di Brazzà, was a medieval ruin situated behind the main house, a villa. Most of the castle had already crumbled away by the time this story takes place. But “A Villa in Wartime” doesn’t have the same ring to it, I guess.
• The book handles its notes and sourcing in a really annoying way. It does have endnotes – but this isn’t indicated anywhere in the text. You read it thinking there aren’t any notes because this is popular nonfiction, and that’s fine. Then you get to the end of the book and there are numbered notes with brief phrases to indicate which quote they refer to. No page number, mind you – you’re given the chapter title and a brief textual reference and that’s it. So the notes for chapter 12, as an example, begin with note 111 (which is useless as a numerical system because it’s not used anywhere except there, in the notes): ‘Previously attached’ G.H. Bennett, The Nazi, the Painter and the Forgotten Story of the SS Road (Reaktion Books, 2012), p. 61. So you have no idea which page in this book the “previously attached” quote is from, but I guess you could go re-read the entire chapter to find it. The casual reader won’t care about this at all. But as a reader on the lookout for facts and sources, this means I now have to go back to chapters that pertain to Buchenwald, for example, and re-read them, looking for the exact phrases given as identifiers in the notes section. SO ANNOYING. Why wouldn’t they have used regular endnotes or footnotes? Why?

Should You Read This Book?

If you have any interest in World War II or Italy, yes. If you like nonfiction stories about families or strong women in peril who triumph in the end, yes.

The letters included here are to and from family members, staff, teachers, fans, hospital colleagues, and friends, all presented in chronological order. In the early years, the girls are very young – letters are mostly thank-you notes, birthday greetings, and quick hellos to grandma (Dowager Tsarina Maria Feodorovna).

As they grow, the letters get more detailed – about classwork, about outings, about people they have in common. Then, during the war, they’re about time spent with soldiers and bandaging wounds and asking about staff or relatives serving far away. Finally, in captivity, the letters are mostly requests for information about friends who have stopped writing, along with short summaries of their Groundhog Day-like existence. I was almost afraid to turn the pages once I reached 1918. When you finish this book, you’re gonna need a stiff drink.

Notes & Impressions

• The style of salutations and closings is very effusive – people thank each other “with all my soul,” and sign off with “kiss you very, very firmly.” It’s charming.
• The letters from Aunt Olga are the most fun to read – her sparkle and personality shine through when she writes to her nieces. For example, in 1910, she wrote to Tatiana (July 8) and told her about how Irina (Olga’s niece; Tatiana’s cousin) and Marie Claire (Irina’s governess?) came to visit for 3 days. “She laughed from morning to evening – she would come to me when I was sitting in the bath – brushing my teeth – but of course we ended up laughing and all the water from my mouth – splashing around the room!” Hands down, Olga was the “fun” aunt.
• The letters to and from a teacher, Petr V. Petrov, are really touching, too. The girls wrote to him for years, with some of their later letters showing a sweet, hilarious playfulness. In one 1907 letter (December 12), Tatiana writes a single line: “I am very worried that I shall make mistakes in my grammar.” Much later, on July 22 1916, he responded to a letter of Maria’s: “I received your kick from a distance of 600 versts or more, and fell over like the knight Dickroke, whom we saw today at the cinema.” The girls and Petr have such a fun relationship – a highlight of the book.
• Olga seemed to have attracted a fair number of domestic and international would-be boyfriends – the other girls might have, too, but only a few such letters for Olga are included here. For example, in early 1912, Peter Dankoffski of Jersey City, New Jersey wrote to Olga and sent her his picture. Just a sample here: “Telling you be [sic or typo?] this letter once more that I am going to be your husband. For I will not married [sic] no other you…write to me this year and come see me.” It makes me wonder…did Olga actually see these letters? Or did a retainer just put them in a file, and that’s why we have them today?
• The godmother/godchild relationship did seem to create a special bond that results in more communication (at least as it’s presented with this selection of letters). Olga Alexandrovna and Olga Konstantinova were godmothers to Olga, and I felt their letters to each other have a bit more emotion and immediacy. Ditto for Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna, who was Tatiana’s godmother.

What Surprised Me

• Olga and Tatiana went with their parents to Germany as children – and that trip clearly strengthened relationships with family there. For months afterward, German relatives corresponded more regularly with the two of them: Uncle Ernie, Aunt Irene, Aunt Victoria, Cousin Louise. Plus, for years afterward, Olga kept up a correspondence with her cousin, Prince Waldemar of Prussia. They chatted about what they did, who they saw, where they went. He referred to her as “Kunigunde,” which must be a mythological or folk reference they shared. It was sweet, but didn’t continue past 1914, with the outbreak of WWI.
• Olga admits to not liking Uncle Pavel’s second wife, Princess Paley. In a letter to Xenia Alexandrovna (her aunt) on November 30, 1916, she wrote: “We also drank tea at Uncle Paul and Aunt Paley’s in Mogilev, with a crowd of children, etc. I can’t say that it was fun, but it was very overheated and we were dying of stuffiness. Do you like this aunt? I don’t.” This is a rare hint of negativity – there are playful references to cousins who are “pigs,” but those are in jest. This is real.

Interesting Quotes

• Olga Alexandrovna to Tatiana, 2/15 Sept 1910: “Is not it true that War and Peace is insanely interesting? I read it to myself when I was 16 years old to myself immersed in it for hours. Do you like to read or not? I never saw you with a book.”
• Tatiana to Olga Alexandrovna, July 14, 1911: “I suppose you already know that Ioannchik is betrothed to Helen of Serbia, which is very touching. How funny if they should have children, will she really kiss him, how nasty!” Boys had cooties way back in 1911, I see. 😉
• Olga Alexandrovna to Olga, October 3, 1915: “I have decided that after the war I will have a child – where I shall get it from is my business – will I find, steal, buy or something else…Are you glad? I am. Well then. A few kisses.” Interesting in the context of her wartime second marriage.
• Olga Alexandrovna to Tatiana, September 30, 1912: “Having said a few sweet words [at the school] - I left, accompanied by Uncle Peter [Olga’s husband] - who was wearing a coat over which he still wore a huge mantle of – no, not that - filthy deer – no, not that - horse skin - which moulted mercilessly and I coughed, breathing this muck - all 10 versts - back and forth - and the weather is very warm!! Truly, it is such a shame - to have a finch instead of a husband - and a huge mistake, all in all ...” Also interesting in the context of her second marriage (Uncle Peter did not last).
• Tatiana to Xenia Alexandrovna, July 8, 1914: “How are you feeling now? Did you see much of Irina and Felix? I heard from Aunt Olga that they are awfully lazy and they get up late, such pigs, it’s awful. When are they returning to Russia and where will they go?” Oh, those lazy honeymooners...
• Tatiana to Olga Voronova, November 3, 1915: “In the afternoon [at Stavka], Alexei goes with Papa and the rest for a walk out of town or by the Dnieper. They go for walks and make bonfires. He has breakfast there independently with the mass of people and foreigners. He does not embarrass them at all and speaks French with them. He doesn’t use English much, but it’s nothing.”

Caveats

I read this as an eBook, and the formatting was…pretty bad.

• There is no cover image included in the book. I was under the impression Kindle automatically put one in the book when you uploaded your file (because they ask you for one), but that was years ago. Maybe that’s changed, or maybe the publishing company used a distributor and didn’t upload directly to Amazon (I know waaaaay more than I want to about this subject). Long story short, the eBook has no cover once you open the book. Minor, but annoying.
• There is no table of contents. When you click on what the Kindle thinks is the table of contents, you get a list of numbers – but these are the endnotes, not chapters or sections of the book. Also minor, but annoying if you want to flip back or forward. There's no clickable way to go back to the year 1912, for example. It’s all entirely manual.
• There are strange white highlights. I read using the sepia tone on my Kindle, and *so many* of the letters had strange manual coding for white highlighting or background on some of the individual lines. If you already use the white background, you won’t notice a thing. Also, if you use Kindle for PC and set the background to sepia, you won’t notice a thing. This only happened in my Kindle Fire. YMMV.
• There are a few typos. I get it – typos happen. People are human. But I kid you not, the word “iTunes” appears in this book. Auto-correct must have perpetrated something evil on the author, the book formatter, and the publisher.

George Hawkins, if by some strange chance you read this, I can fix all this. It’s a pain, but I know how to format eBooks. Feel free to ask your publisher to contact me. What you’re doing is so valuable - I don’t want subpar formatting to turn people away from these letters.

She was born Lilie Bouton in Hamburg, Iowa. The family moved to California because of her little sister’s weak lungs. They spent winters in Reno and summers at Lake Tahoe in a log cabin. But when, in San Francisco, she saw Edwin Booth onstage, performing the Shakespearean role of Shylock, she caught the theater bug.

She eventually headed to New York to tread the boards on Broadway under the stage name “Madeleine Bouton.” Her nickname? Buttons. After a rough start, she got a lucky break – and positive reviews sent her career onto the fast-track. Those reviews praised more than her acting ability. It was her gorgeous eyes that drew in the male viewers.

At a dinner party at Delmonico’s, she met a tall, dark, and handsome German baron, Guido von Nimptsch. He had the title, but no money – everything he had was already owed to creditors. Three weeks later, he asked her to marry him. She admitted she didn’t love him, but he said he wanted the chance to make her love him.

Right off the bat, her new fiancé ordered her to suppress publicity regarding her acting career – not suitable for a baroness. Way to make her love you, buddy.

Despite the awkward stop to her acting career, she was happy at first – but her husband paid her less and less attention, and his debts put a strain on their relationship. When she met Count Nostitz at a ball, there was an immediate spark. She divorced von Nimptsch and married Nostitz, the Russian ambassador to Germany.

In Russia, the count’s fortune and position put Lilie next to the tsar and his family. They were neighbors in Crimea. She also befriended Zinaida Yuspova. Like many well-meaning noblewomen, she tried to help the peasants on her husband’s estates by building schools and hospitals for them. (They didn’t want to use either.) From 1909 to 1913, her husband was the ambassador to France, giving her access to even more of the world’s high society.

Although their marriage had begun with a bang, Lilie was later shocked to discover her husband was cheating on her – while she was pregnant with their child. They didn’t divorce, but the relationship was never the same. They remained friends and life partners, but without that romantic spark that had brought them together.

After the Russian revolution, she became a speaker on the anti-Bolshevik circuit in Europe and America, begging for aid for Russia. At one point, General Mannerheim of the White Finnish Army offered to send 260,000 soldiers against the Bolsheviks in return for the province of Karelia. White Russian leadership refused this deal, which Lilie always believed was wrong and could have ended Lenin’s rule.

When her second husband died, she moved to Spain and married a third time. But revolution followed here there, too…

This book is a who’s who of ambassadors, nobles, and royals from 1900 to its publication date. Either Lilie has a very good marketing sense, or someone told her to include every tidbit about anyone who was anyone. It’s a fantastic read, but that very fact makes me take the stories in this book with a teensy grain of salt.

Tidbits

• Childhood friend Della – she later found a photo of Della in her husband’s desk, and asked how they met. Turns out, it had been at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893, when her husband and his friends visited what’s implied to be a house of ill repute. Della gave him her picture, which he kept forever, apparently.
• In San Francisco, she went to a girls’ school with Millicent Wilson, who later married William Randolph Hearst.
• She spent a week on Nellie Melba’s houseboat during her career as an actress. At the time, Nellie was in love with a playwright, and Lilie had a role in one of his plays.
• She had starred opposite Maurice Barrymore, and went to a party with his daughter, Ethel Barrymore.
• Elihu Root once said of her: “She is one of the few American women who has made good in Europe.”
• According to Lilie, she lectured Kaiser Wilhelm II on women’s rights. When he asked her what she thought of Germany, she contrasted it with America. Germany belonged to the men, while in America, the men put women and their wants first. The Kaiser didn’t like this, and reminded her that in Germany, social life was modeled on men’s needs and women needed only to play role with regard to the kitchen, children, and church.
• Empress Frederick had recommended Guido von Nimptsch for a position with one of Leopold of Belgium’s expeditions to the Belgian Congo.
• Her first husband, von Nimptsch, used his friendship with Prince Bernard von Bulow (Imperial chancellor) to get New York Life Insurance Company established in Germany.
• Her mother-in-law was friends with Princess Victoria (“Moretta”), Empress Frederick’s daughter.
• Nostitz had Catherine the Great’s rubies. She gave them to Potemkin, who gave them to one of his nieces (?).
• Her sister-in-law was a maid of honor to Princess von Wied, so she scored an invitation to stay at a country house with Carmen Sylva and the Queen of Sweden (Sofia of Nassau).
• At a ball, she danced with Prince Joachim Albrecht and talked with Princess Guido von Henckel-Donnersmark, who introduced her to Count Nostitz (soon to be her second husband).
• After her remarriage, she entertained future president Taft (then Secretary of War) as he traveled through Russia on his way home from the Philippines.
• She befriended Grand Duke Boris and Alexander of Leuchtenberg (a cousin of Nicholas II). Alexander wanted to marry George Gould’s daughter, but he refused to give her an income, so the proposal came to nothing.
• Of Queen Marie of Romania, she wrote, “No Queen in Europe could compare with her and no woman ever wore clothes or jewels with such regal grace.” She was bored to death by Marie’s husband, Ferdinand, though. (146)
• She called Rasputin a “gigolo” to Anna Virubova’s face and got reprimanded for it. When asked if she’d like to meet him, Lilie refused: “You must remember I am an American and a Protestant. I do not believe in the prayers either of the saints in Heaven or of the saints on earth! I believe I can say my own prayers directly to God.” (179)

Caveats

• This book is a product of its time. When Lillie describes her second husband’s Russian estates, we see racism (hers and others) against Jews. She says she has many Jewish friends in New York, but at the same time, uses stereotypical and perhaps unintentionally belittling words to describe several Jewish men she encountered on her husband’s estate.

Should You Read It?

Absolutely - especially since it’s free to read or download from Archive.org.

In 1991, a man named Helmut Flatzelsteiner opened Mary Vetsera’s grave and stole her coffin. After pretending the bones, hair, and fabric inside belonged to his great-grandmother in order to get some forensic tests, he decided to then shop his story around to see who wanted to publish it. Most places turned him down. Georg Markus’s paper, Kronen Zeitung, put the story on the front page in 1993.

There have always been conspiracy theories about the Mayerling incident of 1889, during which Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria-Hungary shot his teenage mistress, Mary Vetsera, and then shot himself. As if the incident weren’t dramatic enough, conspiracy theories flourished for a number of reasons. Eyewitness accounts don’t 100% line up. The official cover-up confused the issue by coming out with multiple versions of what happened. The official paper trail vanished. Rumors flew, and were garbled and changed over the generations. Some people changed their stories years later. Put all this together, and you have a recipe for a relatively straightforward incident to become a nexus for worldwide conspiracy theories.

The grave robbery story reignited interest in Mayerling, which led Markus to publish this book.

What I Liked

• The chapters on Rudolf and Mary were good summaries of what’s generally known and accepted about their lives as it pertains to Mayerling. Markus gives you what you need to know without overwhelming you.
• Although there are no footnotes, Markus does a good job of explaining where most of his quotations come from (which isn’t always the case with the King/Wilson book I recommend below).
• Markus includes a brief chapter on his visit with Rudolf’s great-grandson, Guillaume Windisch-Graetz, who believes the murder-suicide version of events.
• Markus includes the results of his talk with Otto von Habsburg, about the contents of a mysterious box he was given (which supposedly contains the gun used at Mayerling). There are no bombshells here – Otto declines to answer the direct questions Markus asks. Still, it’s an interesting inclusion that, as Markus notes, only adds fuel to the fire as far as conspiracy theories go.

Caveats

• The book feels rushed. The chapters detailing Markus’s own story about his meeting with Flatzelsteiner feel like notes, not a narrative. It’s not fleshed out, and there are lots of sentence fragments, which bugged me. A couple examples:
  • A call to Mr. Flatzelsteiner, second meeting, this time in the editorial office. It was December 9^th. The informant again had brought his red case. “Tell us Mr. Flatzelsteiner, tell us! These two people from Burgenland, how was that exactly? When did you make contact with them and where?” It just came out with a gush. Flatzelsteiner was glad to finally get rid of his story. I knew that this man from Lintz was a bit nervous. But it was also quite an adventure he had to report, if it is true… (14)
  • Thursday, December 17, 1992. Two meetings, one after the other. 2:30 PM. Mr. Flatzelsteiner arrived at the editorial office and opened his red case. He took out all kinds of papers, photographs – I was already acquainted with all of that. And suddenly: a death’s head. “That is Mary” Flatzelsteiner said. (19)
• The book feels disorganized. It jumps back and forth between the present-day story of the grave robber, Markus’s behind-the-scenes investigation prior to and after the story broke, and chapters on Mary and Rudolf. The historical chapters are much better than the chapters detailing his own investigation. But there are also random chapters that feel thrown in as an afterthought, like song lyrics Rudolf wrote and lyrics referencing the 1993 grave robbery scandal that appeared in Viennese theater farces (which are not translated from German).
• The German edition was published before the official forensic reports were complete. Why not wait to publish the book until those results were complete? Doesn’t that make a more logical conclusion to the story? What if those results offered new angles for follow-up with regard to one of the many Mayerling conspiracy theories? The obvious answer is that this book was rushed to print to cash in as quickly as possible.

Should You Read This?

Unless you’re super interested in Mayerling, probably not. I’d rather go with (1) Fritz Judtmann’s Mayerling, and then (2) Greg King and Penny Wilson’s Twilight of Empire, which came out after Markus’s book and incorporates details from his story. The King/Wilson book isn’t perfect – they use a LOT of partial quotes that are always footnoted, but would benefit from an explanation of who said that particular thing (and when, and what their biases are) in the text itself. Still, I think it will serve you better than Markus’s book, if you only want to read one. Or you can be a total dork like me, buy them all, and spend weekends poring over footnotes.

Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna was the only daughter of Tsar Alexander II who married Queen Victoria’s son, Prince Alfred. As Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, they had five kids: Alfred, Marie (“Missy”), Victoria Melita (“Ducky”), Alexandra (“Sandra”), and Beatrice (“Baby”). In 1893, when Alfred inherited the duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha from his uncle, he and Marie moved from Britain to Coburg.

Also in 1893, their daughter Marie (Missy) married Ferdinand, heir to the relatively new kingdom of Romania. The country’s king, Carol I, was Ferdinand’s uncle, Karl of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. He and his wife had no children, so Ferdinand had been tapped as his heir. Still with me?

Good.

The bulk of the letters in this collection deal with Missy’s turbulent relationship with her husband and the Romanian court, as micromanaged by King Carol. Missy is clearly homesick for her mom and sisters and their cozy family retreats to the Rosenau, which she describes as if it’s heaven. For her part, Marie relates the usual family news: travel, books, plays, shopping, weather, health, who’s misbehaving, who’s making her life problematic, and how glad she is when Missy’s dad isn’t around. (Their marriage was problematic, but they both clearly loved their kids, albeit in different ways.)

As Mandache notes in her introduction, Marie is a fascinating combination of imperial privilege and practicality. At some points, she sounds just like a modern woman, oohing and aahing over her grandkids and dishing out advice on their childhood illnesses. At other points, she’s lecturing her daughter on how kids these days don’t respect tradition and the right way to behave. Get off her lawn, in other words. It probably would have pained her to be described as relatable, but that’s how I feel about her.

In 1894, for example, she complained about how the blazing sun made everything in the Palais Edinburgh look old and worn out. I have that same thought every time the sun blazes into my living room, illuminating the cracked pleather of my footstool and the faded spots on the floor, blah blah, complain complain. I feel much better knowing a tsar’s daughter had the same feelings.

Mandache has reproduced the letters as accurately as possible, right down to their misspellings and the foreign words they used. Most of the letters were written in English, with plenty of German and French expressions thrown in. Despite not being a native speaker, Marie’s fluency is killer – her writing is more succinct and spelled better than Missy’s. Missy has a looser, flowing style, at times nearly a stream-of-consciousness outpouring. She can also be a very creative speller, which is probably amusing to no one but me.

As a fiction writer, I was once told that writing about royal figures requires impeccable grammar and any mistakes reveal the writer to be of too low a class to faithfully represent royalty. Also, that my first name was too obviously low class to write about royalty and I needed a pen name. This person has clearly never read many royal letters. I find the misspellings charming – evidence that these are real humans doing their best to converse and write in multiple languages.

Events Covered

Not a comprehensive list – just the high points.

• Tsar Alexander II’s funeral
• Marie’s trips to Russia for vacations and other family events
• Missy’s wedding
• Ducky’s wedding
• Sandra’s courtship and marriage
• Faltering of Missy’s marriage
• Faltering of Ducky’s marriage
• Marie’s advice on birth control, childbirth, and child rearing
• Tsar Nicholas II’s coronation
• Marie finding out about an affair Missy had
• Marie’s threat to help Missy leave and divorce her husband
• Illness and death of Alfred, Marie’s son
• Illness and death of Alfred, Marie’s husband
• Birth of 3 of Missy’s children: Carol, Elisabeth, and Marie (Mignon)

A Few Tidbits

• Missy loved being a mom, but she hated being pregnant. She didn’t like the mood swings, the weight gain, or the physical ailments. On first discovering she was pregnant in 1893, she wrote, “Today it seems I am in a bad mood again, but it will also pass, sometimes I feel as if I could sit in a corner and cry, and hate myself and the whole place and people except Nando…” (88)
  
  
• Marie hated gambling: “…you know I highly disapprove of your gambling at Monte Carlo, I think it even disgusting, it quite gave me a shock when you wrote it to me. I cannot even conceive how you liked doing it, as the sight, the people one meets there, the whole atmosphere is filthy. It inspired me with the profoundest disgust, though I went in to see it as a curiosity…” (325)
  
  
• Marie pondering on Ducky’s relationship: “She is such a noble character, she feels everything doubly. And really Ernie adores her, but alas! he is not a man and she wants somebody to keep her in life, of whom she could be proud! But where is one to find such a man nowadays? I often look round and can only deplore the weakness and want of energy of the stronger sex! Believe me we women are a thousand times better!” (292)
  
  
• Missy on her husband’s weakness: “You know, I had illusions about Nando in former days, but now I must [say] that he has a very weak character and this frightens me greatly for the future. For people will not respect him and he will get more and more suspicious and discontented.” (296)
  
  
• Missy had herself vaccinated against smallpox in 1898: “I am feeling rather miserable, as I have been vaxcinated, I thought I ought to decide myself to do it once as there is always small-paux about & you know that pretty Madame Perticari caught it last year and is completely disfigured…” (364)
  
  
• Marie coming to Missy’s rescue after her affair became public knowledge: “I am not one of those mothers who abandons their daughters at the least little fault and leaves their sad destiny at the mercy of those who believe they have the right to oppress them and crush them morally, to kill all their force of character, all their courage in life because of past faults.” (404) YOU GO, MAMA BEAR.

A Few Amusing Quotes

• Marie to Missy, 1893: “In many cases (but positively not in all!) honesty is the best policy.” (145)
  
  
• Missy to Marie on Ducky, 1893: “Ducky sent me some of her new photographs which I did not find good at all, it is so funny how bad she always is on her photographs.” (115)
  
  
• Marie to Missy, 1895: “It is Sunday and she [Baby] has been excused from going to church by the extreme dullness of today’s preacher.” (214)
  
  
• Marie to Missy, 1897: “Flirt, amuse yourself, but don’t loose [sic] your heart, men are not worth it and if you could, really could see their lives, you would turn away in disgust…” (283)
  
  
• Marie to Missy, 1898: “When the wife is full of life and energetic it is the only way to have peace in the house.” (328)

Caveats

I have no caveats about this book. There are plenty of footnotes to identify who Marie and Missy are talking about, and Mandache includes summaries at the beginning of each year to give you a little background and preview of what’s coming.

But I do have a piece of advice: you might want to read something about the people involved first so you’re not scratching your head too often. I recommend Hannah Pakula’s The Last Romantic, a biography of Queen Marie of Romania. I’d read it years before, but after finishing this book, I need to go back and re-read parts of it. There are things that happen off the page, like the discovery of Missy’s first (?) affair, and the turmoil it plunged her whole family into. She didn’t tell her mom when it was happening, and only confessed later, once a lady-in-waiting started telling the whole world about it. Because that revelation happened outside the scope of these letters, you get to read the aftermath. Mandache’s notes provide some context, but if you’re like me and want more detail, you may want to keep secondary resources at hand while reading.

Should You Read It?

Absolutely. This book was incredibly entertaining and informative. I was sad to see it end, and eagerly await the next volume.

Okay, so I mentioned an odd structure. Here’s what I’m talking about.

The book consists of multiple parts. Part one is a brief introduction to Fanny Lear and part two is the bulk of the book: an English translation of her memoir. Part three consists of brief summary chapters of information about Nicholas Constantinovich: his wives and mistresses, his kids, what the authors found out from a source in Tashkent, and a copy of a New York Times article from 1911 about him. Part four is a brief summary of Fanny’s life after her expulsion from Russia. Part five is a series of appendices containing original U.S. State Department documents that pertain to Fanny’s expulsion.

Taken together, these sections of the book do tell a complete story: Fanny’s early life, her time in Russia, what happened to her afterward, plus some info about Nicholas and the rest of his life. Still, I can’t help but wonder why the authors didn’t use her memoir as a source and write their own biography of Fanny, instead of bookending it with chapters that feel a little like Wikipedia.

After all, they went to the trouble of searching for material in the US National Archives, Les Archives Nationales de France (Nice), and the University of Pennsylvania Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Clearly, they’re invested in the subject. Was there simply not enough information to make it a full-fledged biography?

I feel like it needs to be okay to create less than full-length biographies if that’s all the information available. People like Fanny are interesting (to me, at least). I wouldn’t mind reading something that’s, say, 100 pages instead of 300 pages. But that’s not the mainstream publishing view, so for the time being, there’s no incentive to put together a faithful, well-documented biography that couldn’t serve as a doorstop.

All right, I’ll shut up about this now and move on to what you’re actually interested in.

Tidbits

• A nifty drinking game: “They taught me how to drink ‘bruderschaft,’ as invented by their neighbors the Germans. Here is how it goes: You pass the right arm under the one of your neighbor, then drink the glass almost to the bottom, you wipe your mouth and kiss three times, twice on the cheeks and once on the mouth, then you call each other the funniest names that come to your mind, and this way you are bound for life until death, and must always address each other with this name.” (Ch II: My First Day in St. Petersburg)
• Grand Duke Nicholas Constantinovich had a failed romance with Princess Frederica of Hanover. In Fanny’s memoir, he refers to her as “the beautiful princess” and mentions how he loved her but was prevented from marrying her. In reality, she just wasn’t that into him – she was in love with one of her father’s equerries, and she had no intention of marrying a man she didn’t love. He wrote to Fanny, “The memory of her stayed for a long time, printed in my heart.” (CH XIV, Letters from the Steppes)
• A funny story about Nicholas’s brother-in-law, King George of the Hellenes. George married Nicholas’s sister, Olga. One day, Nicholas was hanging out with George and George’s baby son and heir to the throne, Constantine. Nicholas asked if the baby could sit on his lap. George said, “I don’t know if I should run the risk, because if you were to drop him, the Greeks would send me packing.” (Ch VII – Extracts from My Diary – Easter)
• American eggnog was a hit. On Easter Day, Fanny “prepared a substantial eggnog for this occasion, and this drink, so appreciated by Americans, had such a great success that prince L…let himself roll on the living room rug and slept there until the following morning.” Maybe she used a recipe similar to Archie Butt’s, served to Mathilde’s mother? (Ch VII – Extracts from My Diary – Easter)
• Several times, Nicholas Constantinovich refers to himself as Emperor Paul’s grandson. “Grandson” must have been a catch-all term for “descendant” since he was actually Paul’s great-grandson. (Paul -> Nicholas I -> Constantine Nicholaevich -> Nicholas Constantinovich) Here’s what Nicholas said: “How unfortunate it is to be Emperor Paul’s grandson and to have his temperament!” (Ch XIII – Departure for Khiva)
• Nicholas told Fanny to stop wasting stamps. When he was sent to Khiva with the army, Fanny wrote to him. He told her to stop putting stamps on her letters to him: “You do not need to put stamps on the letters sent to me, because those addressed to the Imperial Family go for free…Economize!!!!” (Ch XV – Letters from the Fortress)
• Fanny was a big fan of Empress Eugénie. She wrote, “Although she was most attractive, I have never found anyone, in respect of seduction and beauty, who could compete with Empress Eugenie.” (Ch XVIII – The Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania)
• Fanny made a splash in Italy, too. After being expelled from Russia, she drifted through Europe. At one point, she started a relationship with the Count de Mirafiori, a son of King Victor Emmanuel. Much like her relationship with Nicholas Constantinovich, the worried parents stepped in and put a stop to things. Fanny was expelled from Italy, too – after making them pay for her trip back home to Philadelphia. (Part Four – Fanny Lear’s post Russia life)

Caveats

• Inconsistent Sourcing. There is no bibliography and there are no endnotes or footnotes. In the appendix, we do get those State Department documents. There is also a list of libraries and archives on the Acknowledgements page in the beginning. But we don’t know what was consulted in those libraries and archives (books? rare manuscripts or other documents?). Nothing is cited in the text, with the exception of the reprinted New York Times article (is that even legal?) and the mention of an interview in Tashkent. Since the authors took the trouble to interview someone in Tashkent, they clearly care about the story. So why the sloppy work putting the book together? I don’t get it.

Should You Read It?

Fanny’s memoir is worth a read if you’re at all curious about the life of a Romanov Grand Duke (albeit from an outsider’s perspective). We have to take it with a huge grain of salt, since she was trying to put herself in the best possible light at the time. Still, there are some interesting tidbits like the ones I mentioned above. And you can’t go wrong if you're willing to read the eBook with a price tag of $3.99.

The first third of the book introduces the concept of a go-between and explains how they functioned prior to and during World War I. A go-between is a civilian working as an unofficial diplomat thanks to their connections, linguistic ability, and ability to move in high social circles. Obviously, aristocrats and royals fit the bill perfectly. They were ideally suited to float ideas and ask sensitive questions to high-ranking enemies during wartime, when ambassadors and rulers were unable to do so officially. Their conversations kept these dangerous subjects off the books – making this an admittedly hard subject to research. Mad props to Urbach for taking on such an elusive subject.

As a primary example for the pre-Hitler period, Urbach selects Prince Max Egon II zu Fürstenberg, who served as a go-between for the imperial Austrian and German courts. Other go-betweens covered include Prince Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma, the Dowager Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and her four daughters: Queen Marie of Romania, Grand Duchess Victoria Melita of Russia, Infanta Beatrice of Spain, and Princess Alexandra of Hohenlohe-Langenburg.

Next, the book looks at a few more examples of go-betweens in the inter-war and early WWII years: Carl Eduard, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Princess Stephanie Hohenlohe, and Prince Max Egon zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg. All three of them worked on Hitler’s behalf to further the relationship between Germany and Great Britain. Urbach shows how Carl Eduard’s sister Alice whitewashed his Nazi career in the post-war aftermath, how Stephanie Hohenlohe blew her cover leaving Lord Halifax’s home, and how Max Hohenlohe overstated his influence with decision-makers in the Third Reich.

These stories are fascinating, but in the end, Urbach asks and answers the inevitable question: did these go-betweens make a difference? Unfortunately, in every case but one, the answer is ultimately no.

Caveats

Most online reviews of this book are glowing. I hate to say it, but I feel like I’m missing something. Although I respect the hell out of the research that went into this book, its organization and follow-through felt patchy and incomplete. It’s missing a lot of context, background information, depth, and points of comparison and contrast.

Let's start with the title. Is this book a comprehensive look at Hitler's go-betweens? No. It only covers a select number of German aristocratic go-betweens largely focused on Great Britain. Surely there were go-betweens for other Axis enemies, but they're not covered.

Urbach barely mentions Prince Philipp of Hesse (maybe because Jonathan Petropoulos’s Royals and Reich covered his story in depth?). While Hesse was mainly a go-between for the Italian royal family, he also had substantial contact with British royals, including George, Duke of Kent. This book feels flat without incorporating him into the narrative because he fits the bill so precisely. Why exclude him from the analysis? Why not compare his efforts to those of her chosen subjects?

As another example, despite Hitler being in the title, he barely figures in the book. Although Carl Eduard and Stephanie met and socialized with Hitler, we’re not given much information about what Hitler said or thought about them. The notable exception is Hitler’s statement that Carl Eduard must not be captured (i.e., he should be killed first, if it came to that). Carl Eduard was one of his earliest supporters, and may have been involved in unsuccessful attempts to influence Edward VIII, but had largely receded in importance by the end of the war. If Hitler spoke further about Carl Eduard, we’re not told. Much of the go-betweens’ work seems focused on Goering, Ribbentrop, and Himmler instead. That begs the question...how much did Hitler know what they were doing? We’re not told. And because Hitler is at best a distant presence in the book, the title feels like click-bait.

Here are a few more of my issues - YMMV:

• Not all quotations are cited. As just one example, Urbach mentions a quote from Kaiser Wilhelm II where he “ranted that Jews should be ‘erased’.” (233) No citation.
• There are generalizations with no support. I get it – no book can cover every aspect of a topic. But this happened often enough that I noticed it, which means it happened too often. For example, Urbach tried to make a point about aristocratic bloodlines being devalued in the post-WWI period. She argues that “purists” believed highborn bloodlines “transferred negative qualities. Being ‘mongrels’, whether dogs or human beings, implied imperfection.” (61) Okay, but can we get an example of who, precisely, felt this way? A quote from a reputable writer of the time making this point? Because if we're going with the dog metaphor, inbreeding - always a problem for royals, if not aristocrats - produces the opposite of mongrels. A more likely common viewpoint about royals and aristocrats might be that they were inbred and weak, not strong hybrid mongrels. In the next paragraph, Urbach does provide an example - but it's indirect and ineffective. That example is the Talleyrand-Perigord family, but the one newspaper article Urbach cites doesn’t ding them for their “impure” bloodline. It talks about how hard it is to figure out how to treat property owned by people who split time between countries that are now at war. A much better example of this would have been the Bourbon-Parma family. Prince Elias’s ownership of the historic Chateau de Chambord was contested by the French government for decades because he was an officer in the Austro-Hungarian army. So not only did she *not* support the bloodline point, she didn’t have the most effective example of the point she digressed into. As a second example, Urbach mentioned Hitler making fun of the “degenerate aristocracy.” (168) But we’re not given any examples or quotations to support this. Wouldn’t that seem like a natural inclusion?
• Some important threads are not followed up. On the next-to-last page of her conclusion, for example, Urbach mentions Hess (the Nazi who flew to Scotland, attempting to use back channels to investigate options for a separate peace with Great Britain). Why only bring him up with two hundred words to go? Who were his back-channel contacts in Britain? Were they his contacts or Hitler’s?
• There is not enough background information on the circumstances that prompted the go-betweens’ work. Unless you already know exactly what happened to the Sudetenland, for example, you’re going to be confused during the Stephanie Hohenlohe chapter.
• There are some random value judgments that felt out of place. I’m all for including personality in history writing. But I’m not sure I’m okay with value judgments on a person's appearance or intentions. Here, Urbach describes King Alfonso XIII and Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain: “Looking at photographs of Victoria and Alfonso, even their visual differences are striking. While she had an intelligent face with inquisitive eyes, her husband looked like the cliché of a shifty gigolo (a cliché he tried to live up to by producing a multitude of illegitimate children).” (73) She also refers to Carl Eduard of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha's sister Alice as “devious” for whitewashing her brother's Nazi past. Possibly. But consider the fact that Alice’s memoir was also called For My Grandchildren. Would you tell your grandchildren every sordid detail of your brother’s past, especially in a public forum like a published book? Before I condemn Alice as devious, I’d need an analysis of what she wrote elsewhere, in material not intended for said grandchildren. Did she cover up Carl Eduard’s past everywhere? Or just in this one source, which was never intended as a tell-all?

Should You Read It?

If you can get it from a library, yes. Despite my caveats, I recommend this as an introduction to the people mentioned and the diplomacy of the time.

This was a fun, fast read – although I don’t agree with the author’s conclusion about Mayerling. The book is well written and Listowel evaluates other sources honestly and intelligently. That being said, she bases her final conclusion about Mayerling largely on hints dropped by the descendant of the man who last possessed the Mayerling papers, Austrian prime minister Count Eduard Taaffe. This does not seem reasonable to me, but YMMV.

In short, Listowel believes Rudolf was murdered by commando sharpshooters of the Austrian army, at the order of his relative, Archduke Albrecht. Why? Because Rudolf had participated in some sort of treasonous Hungarian scheme that was apparently worth killing him over.

The murder theory hinges on several retellings, all of them second or third-hand:

• Prime Minister Eduard Taaffe had possession of important papers relating to the Mayerling tragedy, given to him by Emperor Franz Josef. Taaffee swore he’d keep them secret. Those papers passed from Eduard to his son Henrich to his grandson Edward. When Edward Taaffe died suddenly in 1967, the papers should have been inherited by his cousin, Group Captain Rudolph Taaffe. But Rudolph claimed he didn’t have the papers and had never seen them. He believed Edward Taaffe hid them someplace secure, possibly the Vatican. Rudolph Taaffe believed Rudolf was murdered by the Austrian army because of his participation in some sort of Hungarian conspiracy. He said he had no proof, but this was his opinion based on “certain letters I have read and from my conversation with my cousin Edward. He talked about Mayerling, but he never showed me the papers” (236). He believes Prime Minister Taaffe knew of the plot and said nothing because he wanted Rudolf gone. Later, Rudolf said, after the crown prince’s funeral, Prime Minister Taaffe told Franz Josef what had really happened.
• The German ambassador to Vienna, Prince Reuss, wrote to Bismarck that Emperor Franz Josef only agreed to the suicide story to prevent investigation into what was actually a murder, which would have revealed Mary Vetsera’s presence with Rudolf. Reuss also wrote that he heard from the papal nuncio, Monsignor Galimberti, that the bullet “did not pass from right to left, as is officially stated, but from back left behind the ear upwards…the revolver found by the bed did not belong to the Crown Prince, and all six bullets had been fired.” (243) Reuss’s dispatch also said that Mary’s gunshot wound was at the top of her head, not the temple. When Mary’s body was exhumed and reburied in 1959, the people who opened her coffin did not see a bullet hole in the skull – but the very top of the skull was missing.
• Rudolf’s friend and newspaper publisher, Moritz Szeps, published a report after Mayerling that contradicted the official medical opinion published after Rudolf’s death in one key detail. According to that official report, Rudolf held the gun to his temple and shot. In Szeps’s article, he wrote that Rudolf held the gun to this throat, below his right ear. Because of lazy censors, this article made it into print. Listowel believes this discrepancy indicates that Szeps had more accurate insider information. Since Szeps’s account tallies with Galimberti and Reuss’s account, Listowel believes that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
• A descendant of Rudolf’s told Listowel that Rudolf had been murdered by two sharpshooters who had orders to kill him if he hadn’t killed himself by 6:30 am. They crept into the Mayerling hunting lodge at about 7 am and shot him.

Listowel says the murder is what caused Franz Josef to keep what happened at Mayerling a secret – not the fact that Rudolf had shot Mary.

But there are a few problems with this story.

First, Listowel never explains how Archduke Albrecht knew that Rudolf planned to commit suicide that very day. We know Albrecht spied on Rudolf, and we know several people knew Rudolf had been talking about suicide for awhile. But is it really possible they knew the *exact* day and time he was planning to do it? He and Mary were at Mayerling for two nights, if I remember correctly. How did they know Rudolf was planning to kill himself on the second night? Why didn’t they send their sharpshooters in on the first night? It doesn’t make sense.

And when and where did this Hungarian conspiracy take place? What evidence did Albrecht have? It’s one of the conundrums of the Mayerling conspiracy that many authors believe Rudolf was involved in something sketchy, but no one has ever found proof. Listowel herself writes, “Despite thorough, patient research by many experienced historians, not a scrap of solid evidence to bear out this allegation has ever been unearthed” (163).

It’s said that a plan for Rudolf to come out in support of Hungarian language rights in the army might have been unfolding during Rudolf’s stay at Mayerling. Several telegrams he received there might have told him the plan was off or had failed. But if so, that meant Albrecht didn’t yet have evidence of his treason, if supporting a pro-Hungarian language initiative could be called that. Why send sharpshooters to kill a guy you don’t have the evidence to convict? And would Albrecht really have decided to kill Rudolf for treason rather than turn him in to his father, who was exceedingly pedantic and duty-bound when it came to following the rules? I’m not convinced. That’s hanging a lot of responsibility on Albrecht, and I don’t know enough about him to judge whether he was capable of that.

Listowel also notes that one of Galimberti’s sources was the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who is not a reliable witness. For example, he said that he and Franz Josef saw a doctor picking glass out of Rudolf’s brain and skull. But there’s no way that’s true, for reasons discussed in books by Judtmann and King/Wilson. So anything Galimberti told Reuss is suspect if it came from the Grand Duke.

Plus, we know that Franz Josef’s efforts to obfuscate what happened at Mayerling predate Rudolf’s funeral (which is when he learned about the murder, according to this theory).

Long story short, there just isn’t enough credible evidence for me to believe this theory. Did none of the sharpshooters ever talk? Compare this situation to the Romanov murders – several of the executioners talked afterward, despite being sworn to secrecy. That evidence might surface someday, but until it does, I’m not convinced.

A Couple Interesting Tidbits

• In a census form, Emperor Franz Josef once filled out the occupation field with “self-employed civil servant.” (231)
• In 1929, William Randolph Hearst offered Eduard Taaffe’s descendant, Edward Taaffe, $200,000 for any info he had on Rudolf. Taaffe said these weren’t his secrets to sell. (232)
• Rudolf supposedly had an illegitimate child with an illegitimate daughter of Tsar Alexander II (not one of the Dolgorouky children). This woman fled to America, had the baby in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and died not long afterward in Missouri. The child, a boy, lived his entire life in America, claiming a connection to the Habsburgs. I had never heard this story before and tripped out big time. Listowel includes a brief retelling of this story in the appendix, so it’s not vetted and likely untrue.

Should You Read This?

If you’re super interested in Mayerling, yes. If you’re not – or only casually interested – read Judtmann’s book instead. Then, if you’re still interested, try this one.

The book interlaces Hitler’s story with that of Franz Ferdinand and his three kids. We see Hitler as a high-school dropout in Vienna, angry at being rejected and reduced to taking menial jobs – like shoveling snow in front of the Hotel Imperial as Karl and Zita arrive to attend a reception there. We see Hitler’s flight to Bavaria to avoid both being arrested for fraud and compulsory service in the Austro-Hungarian army. We see Franz Ferdinand and Sophie assassinated in Sarajevo. Then we see Hitler enlist in the Bavarian army and earn decorations for bravery in World War I.

After the war, the book continues to intertwine Hitler’s story with that of Franz Ferdinand’s three children. While Hitler took a class in oratory and tested his skill in getting people to do what he wanted, Franz Ferdinand’s daughter married and moved to Czechoslovakia. His two sons remained in Austria, having been evicted from Konopiste, their childhood home, by Czech president Tomas Masaryk. Ernst became a farmer in Styria, while Max became a politician, driven to help bring back a constitutional monarchy. Both men spoke out against Hitler and paid the price.

Immediately after the Anschluss in 1938, Hitler ordered them arrested. According to Longo, they were the first two Austrian “criminals” deported to Dachau. Himmler assured Ernst’s wife the brothers would be “treated fairly there, without any danger to their lives.” (178) Pffft – as if.

The story of what happened to Franz Ferdinand’s three kids during the war is horrifying. I don’t want to give too much away, because if you don’t know what happened, reading this book can feel like a suspense novel: will they survive…and if so, how? I read this in two sittings – it was that interesting.

Interesting Tidbits

 Most of these are from the first half of the book because I don’t want to include any spoilers.

• The author mentions Crown Prince Rudolf, but emphasizes the mystery of his death: he “died by his own hand, or by assassination. The government’s clumsy cover-up made the truth elusive.” But, as far as I know, modern scholarship and forensics have pretty well proven it was a suicide. The assassination theory came from other Habsburgs via secondhand information and has little if any evidence to back it up. I was surprised to see Longo give it credence here.
  
  
• At one point, Franz Ferdinand’s chauffeur was Ferdinand Porsche.
  
  
• King Edward VII of Great Britain convinced Emperor Franz Josef to take his one and only ride in a car. Franz Josef hated it and never did it again.
  
  
• I love this quote about Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie: “Her longtime American friend, Maria Longworth Storer, wife of the United States Foreign Minister to Austria-Hungary, wrote, ‘The Archduke Franz Ferdinand was captivated, not only by his wife’s unusual beauty, but by her brilliant mind, and the Christian zeal and integrity of her character.’” (65)
  
  
• According to Longo, the Austro-Hungarian government refused to pay for the autopsies and embalming of the bodies of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie. Instead, their children’s uncle, Count Thun, had to sell Sophie’s jewels and a property of Franz Ferdinand’s to clear debts and make sure the kids had enough cash to live on.
  
  
• “Germany’s Crown Prince publicly declared to an American newspaper, ‘Undoubtedly this is the most stupid, senseless, and unnecessary war in modern times.’ Kaiser Wilhelm II reprimanded his son for telling the truth.” (95)
  
  
• Kaiser Wilhelm II once offered to make Franz Ferdinand’s oldest son, Maximilian, the duke of Lorraine – an idea aimed at ending the constant tug-of-war between France and Germany for that disputed territory. Archduchess Maria Theresa reminded him of this offer during the war, but he said the time wasn’t right to start negotiating for peace.
  
  
• Maximilian Hohenburg married a Lobkowicz! Countess Elisabeth Waldburg-Wolfegg’s grandmother was Princess Marie Lobkowicz Waldburg-Wolfegg. After my deep dive into Eleonora (Lobkowicz) von Schwarzenberg’s life, I’m always on the lookout for more connections to her family.
  
  
• In the immediate wake of the Anschluss, some countries were granting political asylum to political refugees. Britain was not one of them – at least not for Max and Ernst Hohenberg: “Prime Minister Chamberlain ordered no exit visa be issued for Prince Ernst Hohenberg and instructed the staff to immediately expel him and his family from the [British] Embassy.” (151)
  
  
• Elisabeth Hohenberg’s father, Prince Maximilian IV of Waldburg, lived on the highest hill in the area – with clear radio reception for uncensored news broadcasts from Switzerland. Hard of hearing, he turned up the radio as loud as possible so everyone nearby could hear what was *really* going on. “The Prince was so loved in the region that not even the Gestapo dared tell him to turn his radio down.” (182)

Caveats

• There are a couple recurring grammatical errors. Mildly annoying, but not a deal breaker. For example, the text frequently refers to Sophie’s “lamb broach.” A “brooch” is a jewel. To bring a topic up for discussion is to “broach” the subject. That’s something a copyeditor should have caught. And for half the book, Franz Ferdinand’s kids are referred to in plural possessive as “the Hohenberg’s” instead of “the Hohenbergs’ ” (i.e., the Hohenberg’s home, the Hohenberg’s final days). Still not a deal breaker, but something else a copyeditor had many chances to catch.
  
  
• If you care about endnotes, buy the paperback or hardback, not the eBook. If you buy the eBook version like I did, you’ll notice as you read the text that there are no footnotes/endnotes. Frustrating, yes? If you’re like me, when you see an interesting tidbit or direct quote, you really want to know where it came from. Well, you can’t…until you get to the end of the book, that is. Apparently, the publisher didn’t include the superscript note indicators in the actual text – they just included all the notes at the end. That’s supremely unhelpful because you can’t (easily) pair the note with the specific quote or piece of information it refers to in the text without an insane amount of digital page flipping. Ugh. If you care about sources, spring for a paper copy to make your life easier.

Should You Read It?

Yes. If, like me, you didn’t know much about what happened to the Hohenbergs during World War II, this is fascinating.

You might also enjoy The Assassination of the Archduke by Greg King and Sue Woolmans (affiliate link), which focuses more on Franz Ferdinand and Sophie less on the kids – but was written with the cooperation of their descendants.

This seems to have been the first published biography of Ka’iulani – in the bibliography, the authors almost sound embarrassed because they have no further sources to recommend on her. Luckily, more authors followed suit and today, you can find a few more books to add to your shelf if you’re interested in Ka’iulani.

As a place to start, it’s not bad. I really appreciated the glossary of names and pronunciations at the beginning of the book. But you should definitely supplement this book with others about Hawaii, its royal family, and Ka’iulani, because there are a few places where I thought the authors were a little insensitive in the words they used to describe native Hawaiian culture and practices. It’s something that probably wouldn’t have triggered anyone in the 1960s, when it was written and published, but today, we’d be a little more sensitive with word choice. More about this in the caveat section…

The book does a good job of presenting Kaiulani as she was, not as the media of the time portrayed her. Because Hawaii and its annexation were such contentious topics at the time, reporters often took sides. If you were for annexation, it was best to emphasize the foreignness and otherness of the native Hawaiians. If you were against annexation, you emphasized their capability and right to manage their own destiny.

The result? You get newspaper portrayals of Ka’iulani making her out to be either (a) a saint, or (b) a “dark-skinned” princess too young and inexperienced to rule a country. The authors, thankfully, quote snippets of letters that show Ka’iulani as a real person: at times flirtatious, proud, angry, bitter, depressed, and searching for something to believe in and live for.

Caveats

• The story elements. Periodically, there are snippets of dialogue as well as emotions attributed to the historical figures in sentences that read more like historical fiction than non-fiction. So I was left wondering…was that conversation made up? Are the authors assuming what Ka’iulani felt at that moment? Or did they take that info from a source that’s just not cited?
  • As an example, there’s a dialogue between young Ka’iulani and her governess, Miss Gardinier, about what happened when Ka’iulani refused to practice the piano. Did this incident actually happen? If so, what source is it from? There’s no memoir of Miss Gardinier’s in the bibliography…so are we to assume this dialogue is made-up? If so, why is it necessary? The constant need to evaluate tidbits like this was a little annoying.
  • As another example, when Ka’iulani travels to Jersey, one of Britain’s Channel Islands, the text reads: “The salt air off the English Channel was pure and bracing and did instant wonders for her appetite. She was soon fairly glowing with energy.” (92) Okay…but with no citation, how are readers supposed to know if this is a bit of assumption and storytelling, or if someone actually commented on her energy levels?
• The hints of cultural insensitivity. I don’t believe the authors intended anything in this book to come off as culturally insensitive - quite the opposite. But we’ve come a long way since the early ‘60s. It’s inevitable that the modern reader will look at some of the words and phrasing they used and think, geez, I wouldn’t have put it like that.
  • “There came as if from nowhere an ancient crone in a flowered holuku, who lifted her cracked voice to chant a mele praising the achievements of David Kalakaua…” (11) Why “ancient crone” with a “cracked” voice? Using stereotypical fairy-tale language turns this very real person into some element of the “other.”
  • “The grim old lady had witnessed great changes in Hawaii since first her captain brought her to a semi-savage archipelago.” (69) Why “semi-savage”? Why not just say she’d seen great changes?
  • “Handsomely gowned and jeweled, exquisitely civilized, yet with a hint of something barbaric flashing occasionally in her calm black eyes, Elizabeth was to be a striking addition to the circle at Ainahau.” (157) Why “barbaric”?
• Lack of footnotes or endnotes. When the authors quote newspapers, they mention the name of the paper in the text, as they should. Cool. But at other times, there are direct quotations without citations so you have no idea where it came from.

Should You Read This?

If you’re short on time and want a quick introduction to Ka’iulani, go for it.

If you have a little more time, I’d recommend Peter W. Noonan’s Kaiulani of Hawaii instead – a much more recent, more comprehensive biography. (Review coming soon)

I really enjoyed this book – I read it over a couple Saturdays and sat there for hours at a time. I like books that provide a bit of background information about the times and places a biography subject lived in. This one provides probably more than the average reader is looking for, but at the same time, you need a lot of background information to understand what was happening in Hawaii throughout the 19^th century.

I didn’t always understand why Noonan covered some events and not others. For example, we got a multi-page digression into Hawaii’s disastrous attempt to influence Samoan politics. It happened during King Kalakaua’s reign and didn’t directly affect Ka’iulani. Maybe it’s a pet subject of his – that’s fine. We got no digression – just a mention – of Queen Kapiolani and Princess Liliuokalani’s trip to Queen Victoria’s Jubilee in 1887. Personally, I would have much rather heard about that, especially since Liliuokalani later tried to involve Victoria in her struggle to regain the throne.

If you just want Ka’iulani’s life story, these digressions might irritate you. I wanted the full picture, so I was happy to get dragged along into each rabbit hole that came along. You can tell how big the digressions are by the page counts of the other Ka’iulani books. Pick your poison.

• Nancy & Jean Francis Webb: 218 pages
• Maxine Mrantz: 38 pages
• Kristin Zambucka: 156 pages
• Marilyn Stassen-McLaughlin: “Unlucky Star: Princess Ka’iulani”: 34-page journal article
• Peter Noonan: 496 pages. Yowza.

In Noonan’s version, you get the full play-by-play of the dramatic events that brought down the monarchy, starting in King Kalakaua’s reign. It’s hard for any thinking, feeling person in modern times to sympathize with imperialist regimes that refused to see the value or dignity in indigenous cultures. That being said, the biographer’s job is to tell you what happened and why, which means understanding perspectives that feel outdated, if not downright wrong, to our modern sensibilities. I thought Noonan did this well. He provides quotes and perspective from all sides: the annexationists, the republicans, and the indigenous Hawaiians. You don’t have to like some of them, but after reading this, you know what they said and where they were coming from.

I also really liked that at the end, the author told you what happened to all the people who were part of Ka’iulani’s story.

If this topic interests you, I’d suggest reading other books about Hawaii’s revolution. Even though this one covers it well, it’s not comprehensive. As an example, Claus Spreckels is mentioned a few times in this book. When I got to Julia Flynn Siler’s Lost Kingdom, I saw that his role was much bigger than I’d realized after reading Noonan’s book.

Caveats

• The narrative has distinct jumps between chapters that stick to Ka’iulani’s story and chapters that cover what was happening back home in Hawaii. Sometimes the “Hawaii” chapters go back in time further to cover incidents or people decades in the past. You might think this is inevitable, since Ka’iulani left Hawaii for a British boarding school at the age of 13 and didn’t return for 8 years. Of course you’re going to end up with “meanwhile, back at the ranch…” chapters. But there are plenty of letters from Ka’iulani to the major participants, including Queen Liliuokalani (her aunt), Theophilus Davies (her guardian while in Britain), and her father. I think I would have recommended a more comprehensive approach and looked for better ways to blend the two.
• If you’re a fan of the apostrophe and its proper use, the lack of proofreading in the latter half of this book may irritate you. That was a bitchy thing to say, but I said it. The apostrophe errors stood out so much because it’s not like there were rampant errors of other kinds. It was weird. (“Kaiulanis first visit,” 455, “throne of the Kamehameha’s,” 431, “Kaiulani’s was grateful to be home,” 411, etc.)
• Noonan made a strange attempt to compare Ka’iulani’s English education with that of Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine (the future Empress Alexandra of Russia). His point was that Ka’iulani’s course of study while in England was pretty similar to “the kind of tutoring that was often provided by European royalty to their own daughters.” (197) He mentioned Alix because she was born in 1872, three years before Ka’iulani. He also mentioned that Alix was tutored in history, geography, English lit, German lit, and music. I’m not sure what value this comparison has. It seems like it would have been more valuable to pick a princess or noblewoman sent away to a boarding school. Or, if the point was simply to compare what people studied, provide a few more royal examples to prove consistency. Also, how different was this education from one given to a noblewoman not expected to inherit a throne? Or the daughter of a wealthy middle-class businessman? Again, I’m just not sure what the point was and the insertion of one European princess seemed random. Using only Alix as a comparison point means nothing unless we know whether her education was good, bad, middle of the road, etc.
• There is no index. This is a mistake for a book this long. You have to give people an index. There is no way you’re going to remember where, for example, Noonan brought up Alix of Hesse.

Should You Read It?

If you’re interested in the broader sweep of Hawaii’s history in addition to Ka’iulani, yes.

At the same time, I find myself thinking it might serve you better to read one of the shorter biographies alongside a dedicated history of Hawaii, like Shoal of Time or a dedicated history of the revolution, like Lost Kingdom.

If your interest level can sustain doing all of the above, please do. If you’re going to max out at 2 books, read Zambucka’s biography of Ka’iulani and Siler’s Lost Kingdom. Bonus points of you can also find time for Queen Lili'uokalani’s autobiography, Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii’s Queen.

The book opens in New England, where Ileana lived with her kids following her flight from Romania after the Communists took over. When she flashes back to tell you about her life, she starts by selecting an object – a sapphire and diamond kokoshnik tiara – that she inherited from her mother.

She tells us about Sonnberg, the schloss she and her husband, Archduke Anton of Austria, bought in 1934. They lived there, 30 miles outside of Vienna, through the Anschluss and the first part of the war. Anton was conscripted during the Sudetenland crisis, and remained in the Luftwaffe for years. In May of 1944, Ileana and their 6 kids left Austria for Romania, and stayed there until 1948. Her decision to move was based, at least in part, on the knowledge that shit was about to get real. If the Russians were going to invade Austria and Romania, she preferred her family to be “where every man was my friend.” (107)

The family stayed in Romania through the end of the war, and until the Communist regime made life untenable for her after King Michael’s abdication. All her property was seized, her castle sealed and put under guard. The book ends when she and her family are exiled and forced to leave Romania. We’re told briefly that she next went to Switzerland and then Argentina, but she doesn’t detail anything that happened there.

As we learned in the first chapter, because of her bad health (arthritis and bursitis), she came to the U.S. in May of 1950 for medical treatment. She later moved there, since two of her kids had already gotten scholarships to schools in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. She fell in love with Newton, Massachusetts and settled there. That brings the book full circle with the opening chapter, where she describes learning to cook in her new American kitchen.

What You’ll Find

• A lot of detail about nursing and hospital work in Romania during the war. While still in Austria, she visited a hospital for Romanian soldiers in Vienna. That led to her helping them with paperwork, cheering them up, raising money for their care, and advocating for their needs in Vienna and Berlin. This led to nursing and caring for them herself, and later – in Romania – to setting up a hospital and running it with more energy than I’ve ever had in my whole life. There are plenty of anecdotes about the joy and horror of nursing, including a soldier who came to them with frostbite. When they began to peel off his trousers, frozen and caked with blood and dirt, his frostbitten flesh – as brittle as if it had been burned by fire – broke off above the knee.
• What it was like in Romania when the Communists took over. In a word, terrifying. Russian patrols could shoot first and ask questions later, or commandeer your vehicle and then shoot or arrest you if you annoyed them. Education changed, becoming a narrow agenda of Party politics and altered or heavily edited history. Almost every aspect of life for normal people, from the food supply to civil rights, got worse. Ileana also mentions a touching moment with a hospital inspector who was a Party member. He was so disillusioned because the Party had done nothing to help the working class with all the money pouring in from taxes (“social insurance”). “I cannot understand it; I really cannot! And I have lived for this day!” the man told her. (279)

Interesting Tidbits

• Houses in Austria were taxed according to the number of rooms. Ileana’s Schloss Sonnberg had 35 rooms.
• Immediately after Hitler annexed Austria, Ileana called her mom, Queen Marie of Romania, to let her know she was all right. They normally spoke English with each other, but the German phone operators now insisted they both speak German. A few weeks later, Hitler’s aide-de-camp sent Queen Marie flowers and an apology for forcing her to speak German just to have a phone conversation with her daughter.
• Ileana did not join the German Red Cross because “to do so involved swearing fidelity to Hitler, and this I could not do.” (57)
• During the war, the Kunsthistoriches Museum of Vienna used Ileana’s mother’s old rooms in Schloss Sonnberg to store period furniture that had belonged to Maria Theresa – her cradle, a chair, and writing table, among other items. When the Russians later occupied the castle, she reports, they destroyed the furniture.
• After caring for a couple of soldiers who had been blinded, she helped found a school for seeing eye dogs at Sibiu.

What You Won’t Find

• Much detail about her husband or their marriage. She keeps pretty quiet about him. We’re not told, for example, that the marriage was encouraged by her brother, Carol II, and he refused her husband permission to live on Romanian soil, hence their move to Austria. He’s not mentioned as being with them in America, which come to find out, he wasn’t. They divorced in 1954.
• Much detail about her difficult brother, King Carol II, or her nephew, King Michael. She wasn’t in close contact with Michael, and only managed to see him a few times. Everything was perfectly friendly when they did, but at one point, Ileana’s public efforts on behalf of her hospital led to tension with the government.

Should You Read It?

Absolutely, if for no other reason than to understand how much people sacrificed during World War II. Also, her shining and selfless love for her country and its people is a good refresher of what patriotism really means.

This is a biography of Jeannette “Jennie” Jerome, one of three American sisters famous for their beauty and charm during the Belle Epoque. The daughters of stockbroker Leonard Jerome and his wife Clara, they grew up in New York, Paris, and London. Their father made and lost several fortunes during his working years, and later in life, his daughters depended greatly on their allowances from him.

Marriage

In England in 1873, Jennie met Lord Randolph Churchill, the second son of the Duke of Marlborough. He proposed to her in three days, and she accepted. Their parents tried to convince them to wait, but they insisted. Since Randolph was a second son and wouldn’t inherit the title or the family palace of Blenheim, the Duke of Marlborough had been trying to get him to take a career in politics more seriously. Randolph used this as a bargaining chip, promising to do so if he could marry Jennie. It worked. They married on April 15, 1874.

Seven months later, on November 30, their first son, Winston, was born prematurely. A second son was born on February 4, 1880.

Because of her husband’s role in the Aylesbury scandal, the family was blackballed from many society events at the unwritten command of the Prince of Wales, Edward Albert (the future Edward VII). It’s too long to get into here, so Google it if you’re curious. It took years for the prince’s hurt feelings over Randolph’s attempt at blackmail to subside. But once they did, Jennie became one of Edward’s closest female friends.

Politics

During the 1880s and early 1890s, her life centered around her husband’s political career. He rose from a member of the House of Commons to being not only the Leader of the House of Commons, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was a heartbeat away from becoming Prime Minister someday – and then he fucked it all up on a bluff. Sticking to his guns on the need to reduce the budget for the army and navy, he resigned. He’d done it before – and it had been refused every time. But this time, the prime minister accepted his resignation.

Shocked, Randolph was out of a job. And in a way, so was Jennie, since she’d helped him canvass for his elections and hosted important gatherings for his political colleagues. What now?

Unfortunately, Randolph had a debilitating illness that began taking a greater toll on them both. Leslie says it was syphilis, but I’ve seen other opinions online. It’s inconvenient (i.e., embarrassing) that the great Winston Churchill’s father would have died of syphilis, so I suspect that’s at least part of the reason why the debate over what, exactly, was wrong with Randolph is so heated. Forensics has come a long way since the Edwardian era, so we can also widen the possibilities for a diagnosis because SCIENCE.

In any case, the disease affected his brain and his speaking ability – exactly what he needed to pursue any sort of further political career. In short, he was finished. He died in 1895.

Winston

Jennie threw herself into her son Winston’s career instead, acting as a sort of secretary and personal cheerleader. This book makes it seem like she did a great deal to accommodate his wishes – I want to go to war, mom, make it happen. Now I want to be a war correspondent, mom, make it happen. Proofread my book, mom, and help me get it published. Mom, I need money. Mom, I want to be transferred. I have never studied Winston Churchill or read a single book about him, so all I have to go on are his letters reproduced here. In the 1890s and 1900s, it seemed like he was SUPER NEEDY and relied on her connections and help to get what he wanted. That may not be the case at all – I’m just reporting my impression from this section of the book.

As a middle-aged woman, she made a second marriage that caused a fair amount of Edwardian society to make fun of her. In 1900, she married a man almost half her age, George Cornwallis-West (brother of the Duchess of Westminster and Daisy, Princess of Pless). The marriage held together better than I expected, and although they eventually divorced in 1913, it seems they really did love and respect each other. They remained friends afterward, if that’s any indication.

During and after World War I, the bulk of her energy was taken up with helping Winston. TBH, I started skimming large chunks here because the focus of the book seemed to be more on Winston and his problems than it was on Jennie. Granted, his problems were her problems, but I sort of…didn’t care. I really wanted the focus to be on her, and when it drifted, so did I.

She made one last marriage, to an officer named Montagu Porch, in 1918. Porch professed his love for her, but Jennie was honest and said she didn’t love him, but she did want a companion. This marriage gets little coverage in the book, which is probably because Porch is less interesting than Randolph Spencer-Churchill or even George Cornwallis-West. Still, it felt the like author’s focus had waned.

At age 67, Jennie went to stay with Lady Homer at Mells Manor. One night, she wore a new pair of high-heeled shoes to a party and, unfortunately, tripped while going down a wooden staircase polished with wax. She fractured her ankle in multiple places. The author’s governess blamed her fall on vanity for wearing high heels. Not long afterward, her leg turned gangrenous and was amputated. She died unexpectedly, shortly after the amputation on June 29, 1921.

This section of the book also felt rushed, and I can’t help but wonder why. Are there fewer sources and letters to quote? Did Jennie write less and talk less during her illness? It’s not even clear how soon after the break she had the amputation, or how soon after the amputation she died. In any case, it wasn’t the end anyone wanted or saw coming for her. It shocked me when I got to it.

Which sent me into the internet, which is how I realized that not everything I’d just read could be taken as gospel.

Opinions & More Opinions

Apparently, it is a great matter of debate how many lovers Jennie had…and whether Winston Churchill was even Randolph’s son. I have no horse in this race. I don’t care at all. But I ended up reading some forum where people were discussing a relatively recent book based on the theory that he was the son of King Milan of Serbia. In the forum, the participants seemed to take it for granted that Milan was one of her lovers. One poster offered a list of lovers that was several dozen deep.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Coming fresh off of this book, there are no actual admitted lovers – just “admirers.” So right there, now, I’m second-guessing both sources. What does an “admirer” mean to Leslie? I don’t know. Was I supposed to interpret “admirer” as “lover”? Or are the people assuming the admirers are lovers misinterpreting the situation?

According to this book, Milan of Serbia was in love with Jennie’s sister, Clara. Leslie says that Clara and Milan had “a very discreet love affair.” (231) Jennie, she reports, wasn’t a fan and belittled his table manners and called him Clara’s “I am boring.” (234)

But in another book I peeked at via Google Books, I saw that Jennie stole the story of being courted by Milan and used it in her memoir. Her sister Clara was furious when she found out. So now I’m second guessing my second guessing. Do the people who think Jennie had an affair with Milan think so because she embellished her memoir? Was the embellishment actually the truth? Or did those people take Jennie’s memoir at face value and simply fail to do more research? This gets really tanged really fast. I have no answers to give you.

And that’s just the controversy surrounding one lover on her purported list of…well, many.

This has gone beyond casual reading, which was all I intended, so I’m dropping the issue here.

Investigate further if you want.

Tidbits

• Jerome regularly took her oldest daughter, Clara, to Princess Mathilde Bonaparte’s salon in Paris. At the time, the family (minus their father) lived in Paris, and Clara was the only daughter who’d come out into society and was old enough. (27)
• When Mrs. Jerome heard that the Tuileries were burning, she ran to the scene and found people selling off imperial possessions. She bought a crapload of plates, which got handed down to Clara’s grandson. (31-2)
• Jennie’s dad to the Duke of Marlborough, while negotiating her dowry: “I can but think your English custom of making the wife so utterly dependent upon the husband most unwise.” (51)
• Jennie was friends with Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, who married Queen Victoria’s second son, Prince Alfred. Several of Marie’s letters to her are reproduced in this book. They’re not about anything earth-shattering…just indications of warmth and friendship and wanting to see each other again.
• In 1897, Jennie and Randolph traveled to San Francisco and Monterey. They stayed at the Del Monte Hotel, a place that will be familiar to readers of my Medium article on Prince George, Duke of Kent and his adventures in California.
• Winston Churchill to Jack, his younger brother: “I think, mind you, that vulgarity is a sign of strength.” I’m going to add this to my FAQ page for the question people ask about why I swear.
• Jennie on money: “I no longer even want to understand money. There is never enough of it however one tries. Better to put it from one’s mind and trust in fate…” (285)
• The Crown Prince of Germany (Kaiser Wilhelm II’s son) was once discovered in a locked bedroom with “a certain peeress” after a ball at Grosvenor House held in his honor. At the end of the ball, he’d disappeared and Jennie’s second husband George (brother of the hostess, the Duchess of Westminster) went looking for him. When they realized what was happening, they decided to leave him be and leave an equerry posted outside the door. “Only the lady emerged unruffled and drove home, tiara and all, apparently well pleased with herself. The Kaiser heard of the incident and the repercussions of this party lasted quite a while.” (317) Anyone know who this peeress was?
• At King Edward VII’s coronation, he invited several women into the King’s box – a box he “packed with lady friends who could not enter the Abbey as peeresses.” These included Jennie, her sister Leonie, Countess Torby (Grand Duke Mikhail Mikhailovich’s wife), Princess Daisy of Pless, and Alice Keppel (Edward’s mistress).
• Her sister Leonie’s advice on dealing with emotional vampires: “You must never let people off-load their troubles on to you. They just chew you into a piece of limp string and go off revived.” (369)

Caveats

• Family bias? I mentioned above that the author being a close relative of Jennie’s was a plus and a minus. It’s an obvious plus because you get to see how family members felt about her. You get letters to those family members you might not otherwise see. And you get the author’s memories and conversations with people who knew her well. Great, yes? Well, it also means this may be lightly (or heavily) whitewashed. I don’t know enough about the family to judge this. But based on a quick online look, people seem to think Jennie was quite promiscuous, which isn’t the vibe I got from this book. (We’re back to that “lovers” vs. “admirers” question). Also, as Field tells us, one of Winston Churchill’s nephews sued to prevent publication of passages or tidbits he didn’t like in at least one Churchill book. Knowing this, you have to ask if a family member would tell the full truth if it wasn’t flattering. My guess is either no, or only partially. That’s totally their right, but it’s also something a reader should be aware of.
• The last third of the book felt rushed. Granted, Jennie’s most interesting adventures were over. But there was much less attention paid to Jennie’s last husband than there was certain of her admirers earlier in life.
• Less than optimal eBook formatting. I read the digital version of this book on a Kindle Fire, and there were a few weird formatting issues. The pound symbol didn’t display correctly. You have to be a bit of an interpreter when you see a monetary value, date, or anything with a number that doesn’t make sense. What’s weird is that I also viewed this book using Kindle for desktop, and it was fine. YMMV.

Should You Read It?

Sure! I enjoyed it. And it feels like a good starting point and perspective. Get the story from a family member, then dive into one of several other books on Jennie and the Jerome sisters if you’re intrigued.

As always, Aronson’s narratives are crisp and entertaining. Here, you get the stories of the three mistresses mostly compartmentalized into their own sections, but you also get crucial updates on each woman as we’re learning about her successor. It didn’t shed much light on Edward VII, if that’s what you’re looking for, but it does give you a glimpse into three fascinating women’s lives:

• Lillie, the society beauty turned actress who had endless wit and charm.
• Daisy, the aristocratic society butterfly who later became a socialist and a blackmailer.
• Alice, the gentle wife whose daughter called Edward "Kingy."

One interesting thing this book does is explode the story about Queen Alexandra allowing Alice Keppel to see the dying Edward VII. That’s not exactly what went down…and Aronson explains how that story got started in the first place.

Tidbits

• County house party hijinks: Lillie Langtry told the story about that time Edward hoisted a donkey into the host’s son’s bedroom. Then they dressed it in a nightgown and put it in the guy’s bed. Wow. Just…wow.
• Battenberg baby: In 1881, Lillie Langtry bore an illegitimate daughter whose father was Prince Louis Battenberg. He later married Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, one of Queen Victoria’s granddaughters. The girl, Jeanne-Marie, didn’t learn who her real father was until she was 20!
• Rejecting Leopold: Daisy Maynard (the future Countess of Warwick) was at one point earmarked as a bride for Queen Victoria’s hemophiliac son, Prince Leopold. He was in love with someone else and so was Daisy, so it never came to pass.
• Embarrassing Rudolf: Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria was shocked and embarrassed when, during a London visit, he went with Edward, Prince of Wales to a restaurant. At 2 am, Edward asked the orchestra to play a can can, and started dancing it with the Duchess of Manchester. Rudolf shooed away the waiters, whispering, “…they must not see their future King making such a clown of himself.” (153)
• Ask Eugenie: When Alice Keppel went sightseeing in Paris with the former Empress Eugenie, a palace tour guide showed them the pen Napoleon I had used to sign his abdication. “Nope,” said Eugenie. She went over to the desk, opened a secret drawer, and pulled out a pen. “That’s the pen he used,” she said. Is it true? Or was Eugenie just messing with them? Either way, I love that story. (305)

Caveats

None, really – this book does exactly what it says it will do.

I did get the feeling that Aronson doesn’t like Queen Alexandra, but tried hard not to show it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; everyone is allowed to like or dislike historical figures as they see fit. I personally like Alexandra, so it was interesting to see moments where Aronson’s exasperation with her crept into the narrative.

Should You Read It?

If you’re looking for a fun, fast historical read, yes.
If you’re looking for background on Edward VII, yes.
If you’re looking for deeper insight into his character, no.

This book took me a couple weekends to read – it was fast and pretty fun to read. It’s aimed at the casual reader, so you don’t have to know anything about Hawai‘i to understand what happened during the turbulent 18^th century. This book tells the story of Hawai‘i’s annexation, which sounds a little dull. It’s not, because Siler’s protagonist is Queen Lili‘uokalani. Because she’s what grounds the story, we always come back to what she saw, what she knew, what she heard. It makes a story with hefty political elements and overtones less boring that it would otherwise be. There are lots of primary sources quoted, which is fantastic. But Siler is careful to weave them into a story – not just a recitation of facts – which is much appreciated.

There are digressions here and there when something too fascinating not to share comes up, like the violent confrontation Claus Spreckels’s son had in a San Francisco newsroom. It doesn’t have anything to do with Lili‘uokalani’s story directly, but I’d rather know it than not. I’m glad Siler is the kind of author who includes these tidbits.

As with every book I’ve read so far about the Hawaiian revolution (except Lili‘uokalani’s memoir), the way the author presented the story required some jumping back and forth. Here’s what Lili‘uokalani was doing, here’s what Ka‘iulani was doing, here’s what Thurston was doing, etc. Because of this, I felt like I was reading some of the same information over again. This isn’t a caveat since a casual reader might not even notice. It’s just something to be aware of. If you start feeling déjà vu while reading, this might be why.

Tidbits

• “Lili‘uokalani” isn’t her real name. That name was given to her by her brother, the king, when he named her his heir apparent. Her real name was Lili’u Loloku Walania Kamaka’eha. Which sounds great and all, until you read that the high chiefess who named her had an eye infection at the time and took out her pain on the new baby girl. That name means smarting – tearful – a burning pain – the sore eye. Yowza. (7)
• When King Kalākaua traveled to the U.S. to discuss a reciprocity treaty, he stopped in New York City and had breakfast with the editor of Popular Science Monthly. The king had written to this guy for years about inventions he’d tinkered with: a submarine torpedo and improved bottle stopper. How cool is that? I had no idea.
• According to Siler, ‘Iolani Palace was the first royal palace with electricity – it got electricity four years before the White House.
• Henry Dawes, an American politician and sponsor of the Dawes Act, once said that to be civilized was to “wear civilized clothes…cultivate the ground, live in houses, ride in Studebaker wagons, send children to school , drink whiskey [and] own property.” (129) I’m just stoked that drinking whiskey is part of being civilized.
• Lorrin Thurston, one of the ringleaders of the Committee of Safety who overthrew Lili‘uokalani, had a very well-respected grandmother. Why? Because she underwent surgery for breast cancer with no anesthetic. (280)
• S. troops looted ‘Iolani Palace during the Provisional Government’s tenure (before annexation by the U.S., in other words). King Kalākaua’s crown, created in London for his coronation in 188X, was stolen. One of the new government’s recruits pried the gems out of the frame and used them to pay up in a game of dice. He sent one of the largest diamonds to his sister in America, not knowing how valuable it was. I wish I could tell you what happened next, but this anecdote isn’t sourced in the endnotes. Another recruit also got caught with some of the gems that had been pried out of the crown. “He was arrested, found guilty, sentenced to three years in jail, and ordered to pay a $200 fine.” (232)

Caveats

• Unmarked endnotes. I haaaaaate it when publishers (or authors? Who is actually responsible for this travesty?) choose this option. Seriously. It helps no one. If publishers don’t want their book to scare off readers with footnotes or endnotes, well, shit, market to a better class of readers. Or don’t include them. Just have a bibliography and direct readers straight to the sources. It’s annoying, but at least it’s annoying in an honest way. Including them without notations in the text is SO FRUSTRATING for readers who care. First of all, you have to figure it out when you see something that should be cited appears without a citation. It’s like, oh, that’s odd…what’s going on here. And then you figure out there were already hella citations you missed because no one told you. Is there some unwritten law against putting a note at the beginning telling people there are endnotes? And then for the rest of the damn book, you have to anticipate which sentences might have endnotes, and flip to the back to see if you’re right, like you’re a goddamn psychic or something. Like, I have papercuts and cracked skin on my fingers from all the flipping back and forth. And I imagine it’s frustrating to readers who don’t want endnotes because they think they have a few chapters left, and boom, the story is suddenly over and the last 50+ pages are stuff they don’t want. Ugh. I know I should be grateful I got endnotes at all, but I feel so stabby when I finish a book in twice the time it usually takes me due to all the guessing and flipping back and forth. I have issues. Sorry, folks.
• A fair number of typos and grammatical errors. Not a horrific amount, but enough that I noticed them. Seas “teamed” with fish. (xviii) Something “caught the journalists attention.” (63) Lili’u lay “prone, looking up at the clear night sky.” (92) The “once close sister-in-laws” didn’t get along. (192) See what I mean? Nothing is a deal-breaker, but after awhile, it adds up. It made me wonder if these were copyeditor-induced errors, spellcheck-induced errors, or errors in the original manuscript.
• In a couple points, the author included skin color when describing people, which seemed unnecessary. If someone is a native Hawaiian, like Ka‘iulani’s mom, do we really need to be told her skin is the color of “creamy coffee”? What purpose does that serve other than to perpetuate, albeit to a lesser degree, the racism-influenced descriptions 19^th century writers and reporters used when describing Lili‘uokalani and Ka‘iulani? I mean, the book includes photographs. Even if someone didn’t know what a native Hawaiian might look like, those pictures, even though black and white, present a more accurate picture than an author’s description. This only happened a few times, but it was jarring when it did. YMMV.

Should You Read This Book?

Yes. It’s entertaining, very accessible, and I don’t think my caveats would even be noticed by most casual readers.

In January of 1807, 37-year-old Napoleon met the 20-year-old Marie Walewska at a ball in Warsaw. While fighting the Russians, he was headquartered in Poland. The Polish aristocracy flocked to him as their savior, hoping he’d (a) trounce the Russians, and (b) reinstate their country as its own entity. Poland had disappeared off the map after being partitioned several times between Prussia, Austria, and Russia.

At the time, Marie was married to Anastase Walewski – a man 50 years her senior (eww). When Napoleon pursued Marie, her husband was all for it. If she could get his attention and promote Polish interests with him, what was the harm? There was everything to gain and nothing to lose.

At first, though, Marie was terrified. Napoleon was literally the most important man in the world. And she was a staunch Catholic who didn’t want to betray her marriage vows. But on the other hand, she loved her country – and here was her best chance to serve it.

It seems that on her second visit to Napoleon, she gave in and slept with him. (There were lots of tears on her first visit, and that must have been a buzzkill.) Sutherland’s version of the story is that once she slept with him, they eventually fell in love.

But Is That Really What Happened?

But I’m not entirely convinced either of them truly loved the other. Was Napoleon infatuated? Was it lust at first sight? Yes and yes. Once he got to know her, did she charm him with her personality? Yes. But I’m just not sure it was more than that, at least on his end.

After their initial weeks together in Poland, Napoleon left for Tilsit to meet and make peace with Tsar Alexander I. Then it was back to Paris to, you know, run his empire.

About two years later, Napoleon summoned her to Vienna while he was hashing out a peace treaty with the Austrians. They resumed their affair. Marie was clearly still on his mind, but it doesn’t mean she was his great love. She was beautiful, sweet, and easygoing – with none of the drama he’d come to associate with Josephine. And because he was pretty much master of the world at this point, it was easy for him to summon people across countries. There must have been some correspondence between them, but what has survived is extremely limited, and only from Napoleon’s point of view. We have none of Marie’s letters to him to fill in the gaps.

How Marie Changed History

During their Viennese sojourn, Marie got pregnant with his child. This convinced him he was in fact capable of founding a dynasty – something he hadn’t been sure of before, since he and Josephine had no kids together. But instead of elevating Marie to the throne, he married Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria. He was already making these marriage arrangements before Marie had even had her baby.

Marie was relegated to the background – still important as the mother of his child, but never again to be his mistress.

Napoleon set Marie up with a house in Paris, and she divided her time between France and Poland. Napoleon saw her and his son occasionally, and Marie remained entirely loyal to him.

But Napoleon’s loyalty always lay with his wife, Marie Louise, whom he hoped would come join him in exile. Even on Elba, when Marie Walewska was the one who came to see him and offer to stay with him, Napoleon was a dick to her. He hid her from his mom (also visiting at the time) and forced her to leave when island gossip mistook her for Marie Louise and people started asking when they’d get to pay their respects to the empress. He had his people hurry her off the island in a storm, less than 48 hours after she’d arrived.

See what I mean? A dick.

Caveats

Sutherland freely admits the lack of documentation on Marie Walewska is a problem – it’s the first sentence in her author’s note. And to make matters worse, most of the memoirs that mention her were written and published during a time when her son with Napoleon, Alexander Walewski, was Napoleon III’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. He didn’t want his mother’s reputation tarnished with 40-year-old gossip, so he tried to keep references to her affair out of published materials.

That means our big caveat here is that any attempt to flesh out this story is based on conjecture.

We just don’t know how Marie felt about Napoleon. We know she came when he summoned her. We know she chose to live mainly in France. We know she went to Elba. We know she married another man after Napoleon sent her away from Elba. That’s about it. Filling in any motivation for these actions is all guesswork. Marie did dictate a brief memoir a few months before her death, but we can’t be sure she was telling the whole truth. She wanted to leave a tidy version of events for her sons – not to clear the historical record once and for all.

And we don’t really know how Napoleon felt about Marie. At the time this book was written, there were 14 known letters he sent her. The first several are full of infatuation – but over time, they became more formal and transactional. What are we supposed to do with that? We can’t assume anything, either that he loved her or didn’t love her.

So in the end, this isn’t a great love story – it can’t be. It’s the pieced-together story of an affair. How much you enjoy this book will be based on how much that intrigues you.

Should You Read This Book?

If you’re interested in Napoleon, yes.

If you’re interested in Polish history, yes.

If you’re looking for a fantastic historical love story, maybe not – because that’s not what this is.

This is one of several books on Mayerling I’ve read lately, and it’s by far the best. If you’re not familiar with Mayerling, that’s the name of the hunting lodge where, in 1889, Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria-Hungary shot his teenage mistress, Mary Vetsera, and then shot himself. The crown’s efforts to cover up the murder-suicide only led to numerous conspiracy theories that have never died out.

Judtmann never intended to research or write about Mayerling. But in 1957, he inherited the “Hubertus Clock” from the only daughter of Emperor Franz Josef’s physician. But when Judtmann set out to research who’d given Franz Josef the clock in the first place, he found a box of papers relating to Crown Prince Rudolf that was not housed with the rest of Rudolf’s papers. In that box, he found a document from 1912 in which Heinrich Count Taaffe (son of the former Austrian prime minister) said that his father’s Mayerling papers had been lost.

That document sent Judtmann on a quest for information about Rudolf and Mayerling. This book is the result of years of careful research, a search for the descendants of people who played a role, and a close examination of all the facts known up to that point (the late 60s).

What I Liked

In a word, a lot.

• It’s complete. Judtmann goes through the story in chronological order – no jumping back and forth like in Markus’s book or retelling in multiple layers like King/Wilson’s. He also reconstructs carriage routes on maps, and includes a reconstructed floorplan of the Mayerling lodge. He doesn’t ask you to take his word for stuff, in other words – he shows you what you need to know to understand what’s going on. He also tells you when different versions of the same document don’t agree.
• It’s thorough. I mean, dude. This guy went to the amazing lengths of finding historical documentation on average transportation time on specific streets in 1888/89 in Vienna to verify stories about cab rides Rudolf, Mary, and Marie Larisch took. Judtmann takes nothing for granted, in other words. You might think something this detailed is dry, but I found every aspect of his research fascinating. He also built a timeline of telegrams between the various people involved to track how and when the pope learned of Rudolf’s suicide. It’s a thing of beauty.
• It’s a pleasure to read. I say this mostly in contrast to Markus’s book, which was choppy and uneven at best. This book takes its time in the best possible way.

Caveats

Yes, there are a few, but they’re minor.

• When it comes to Rudolf and Mary’s relationship, older sources tend to put their first meeting in November of 1888 (including Judtmann and Morton). Later sources tend to move this date backward to either April of 1888 (Markus) or even earlier (King/Wilson). Keep in mind that this part of the story is surprisingly fluid, and I don’t think anyone has done a good comparison of the available sources on this point.
• One tiny pet peeve – in the first paragraph, he says Mary Vetsera was 18. She was still 17 (but other references in the book properly cite her age as 17).
• Because so much happened after this book was published (what with the grave robbing and such), you might want something a little more current to get up to speed after you read this. All of Judtmann’s research is still valid, and it’s the best place to start.

Should You Read This Book?

If you’re only going to read one book about Mayerling, make it this one. If you’re not interested in Mayerling, this is probably more information than you want – but it’s still worth reading as a fascinating story of how one goes about unravelling a mystery.

The bulk of this book is about Cecilie’s childhood – her ancestry, memories of her parents, the places she loved in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, visits to Russia and Cannes, and the like. She carries the story through her marriage to Crown Prince Wilhelm of Prussia in 1905.

In terms of style, it’s a little syrupy. Here’s an example: “The close personal relations between the prince and the people of his country always seemed to me to be particularly beautiful in my native land; these relations had been maintained and consciously tended from earlier and simpler times.” (25) She describes her father as “the most lovable and kindly being that has ever existed” (28) and Schloss Schwerin as “one of the finest royal seats in North Germany” (31). All that may be true, but the superlatives for everyone and everything are relics of a  different writing style from a gentler time.

In the final chapter, “Up to My Silver Wedding,” she admits she was going to stop writing after she described her wedding. That final chapter doesn’t contain much specific information about the important events that happened during this period of her life, like the war, or the fallout when her husband was accused of war crimes. It’s mostly a meditation on the virtues of the German people and her love for her country.

I don’t think she had a single bad thing to say about anyone in this book.

Is it possible she was that positive of a person? Of course.

But I doubt it. If you contrast this version of events with, say, gossipy Catherine Radziwill’s version of her life, these are two circles in a Venn diagram that do not overlap. Even if we assume Radziwill cannot be fully trusted, there are other sources that mention the trouble in her marriage. There’s no hint of that in her telling, which is presumably why she didn’t want to cover these years with any depth.

This is also nothing short of a canonization of her mother-in-law, Empress Augusta Viktoria. After having read John van der Kiste’s biography of her, the impression I got was that Augusta Viktoria wasn’t especially beloved by anyone other than her children. But Cecilie praises her to the moon, and gives no hint of the small-mindedness or bigotry that other sources reveal.

She also sidestepped any mention of the negotiations her father-in-law, Wilhelm II, made with her mother, Dowager Grand Duchess Anastasia of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, to keep Anastasia away from Berlin after Cecilie’s marriage. Her scandalous behavior was too much for Wilhelm, but you’d never know it from Cecilie’s description of her engagement and wedding preparations.

And you know what?

That’s fine – this is a memoir, not an unbiased history.

I’m nosy, but no historical figure should feel obligated to feed that sort of nosiness. If this is the story Cecilie wanted to tell, who’s to say it’s incomplete or inadequate? Not me.

Interesting Tidbits

• The composer Flotow was once director of the Schwerin Court Theater.
• A funny translation: the medieval torture device that we know as the “Iron Maiden” is here translated as “Iron Virgin.” (39)
• In Cannes, Cecilie and her family befriended Mrs. Robert Goelet: “She had lost her only daughter, who was of my own age, soon after one of our joint expeditions to the islands, and I think she was so fond of me personally because I somehow reminded her of her dead daughter.” (83) Mrs. Robert Goelet was Harriette Louise Warren, whose daughter Beatrice died in 1902 of pneumonia. Her husband’s cousin, Peter Goelet Gerry, married Mathilde Townsend, who bought the Yusupov black pearl necklace from Cartier.
• Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich liked to tease Cecilie because of her height: “…because of the height to which I had shot up he called ‘Spargelgespenst’ (asparagus ghost), a name which I could not shake off all through my childhood. In revenge I called his dear wife, Aunt Beth – Elisavetta Mavrikievna nee Princess of Sachsen-Altenburg – ‘Great grand-aunt.’” (152)
• Princess Wilhelm of Baden (Princess Marie Romanovsky, Duchess of Leuchtenberg) “always dressed in a man’s style, that is, a jacket with a waistcoat and tie, which gave her a rather severe appearance. But she was very friendly and exceptionally beloved among her people.” (188)
• On the morning of her wedding, the Japanese Prince Arisugawa and his wife came to present gifts from the Emperor: “This occasioned a peculiar situation, inasmuch as my mother, who was in fact a Russian Grand Duchess, and the Japanese took no notice of each other – for Russia and Japan were still at war with one another!” (230)
• She fiercely defends Kaiser Wilhelm II against accusations that he was (partly or wholly) responsible for World War I: “Never has a greater and more shameful lie been spread through the world, and never has the honour of a great and peace-loving nation been more wantonly defamed than in this accusation, which was then actually upheld in a so-called ‘Treaty’!” (244)
• She sidesteps the accusations of war crimes against her husband, the crown prince: “As the new Government had refused to allow his further service in the army, there was nothing left for him but to go for a time to a neutral foreign country.” (251)

Should You Read It?

That depends on what your goals are.

If you’re looking for gossip, look elsewhere.

If you want a gentle travelogue and tales of a time gone by that take you from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean to St. Petersburg, you’ll enjoy this.

This book isn’t a joint biography, but it does aim to tell the story of both Napoleon and Marie Louise, with a focus on the time their lives overlapped. This is a tough task because so much of Napoleon’s life happened before Marie Louise ever entered the picture. As a result, readers wanting to focus on Marie Louise have to wade through quite a bit of detail on Napoleon’s battles. Luckily, Palmer intersperses his summary of Napoleon’s rise with Marie Louise’s childhood and adolescence at the Habsburg court.

My Marie Louise Quandary

I’m still struggling to get a feel for who Marie Louise was. Maybe we’ll never truly know – Palmer cites copiously from her letters to Napoleon and his to her. How much closer can we get to them? I doubt it’s possible short of a psychic encounter of some sort. Still, I’m left with more questions than answers.

Marie Louise’s letters to Napoleon up to his abdication are effusive with love. Granted, she’s still young – 22 at this point – and this was her first real relationship. But as you read about his fall in this book, it seems like the letters are all “I love you, I love you, I love you, I think of you all the time” but she changed gears pretty quickly once he’d abdicated. For example, in mid-February 1814, on their son’s third birthday, she wrote to him that “…three years ago you gave me such moving proof of your love that tears come whenever I recall it” (ch 12).

By late March, the Allies were at the outskirts of Paris. Napoleon had previously told Marie Louise not to abandon Paris. Now, his brother Joseph urged her to flee and she refused. But when Joseph read her part of a letter Napoleon had written him, where he asked Joseph not to let Marie Louise be captured in Paris, she agreed to have the carriages ready for a possible flight the next day. The Regency Council was split on whether she should leave. General Clarke said yes; Talleyrand said no. The council voted that she should stay…until Joseph appeared, reading from two letters of Napoleon’s that warned against letting Marie Louise and her son be captured. That changed a few minds, and a new vote was in favor of her departure. Marie Louise herself voted to stay.

She left on Tuesday, the next morning.

On Wednesday, the Prefect of Paris negotiated the city’s surrender to Tsar Alexander I.

Marie Louise never saw Napoleon again. During the next week, she was at Blois while Napoleon was at Fontainebleau. They exchanged a dozen letters in the first week and a half of April. On April 7, she wrote that she wanted to join him: “I beg you to let me come” and “…there’s no one in the world who loves you as much as your faithful Louise.”  (Ch 12)

By the end of that 10-day period, she seemed depressed and told Napoleon she was getting sicker and sicker, to the point of coughing up blood. She moved to Orleans, where the air was supposedly healthier. Still convinced she wanted to join him, Napoleon sent a troop of cavalry to bring her and her son to him. But she had already left to join her father by the time his troops got there. Her letter said she’d gone against her will. A scribbled note passed along her route told him she still wanted to join him and no one could stop her from doing so.

It’s unclear whether Napoleon ever received this note.

On April 13, at Fontainebleau without her or their son, Napoleon wrote her a farewell letter and tried to commit suicide by drinking poison.

Meanwhile, Louise’s father – Emperor Franz – paid her a visit at Rambouillet. After that visit, Louise wrote to tell Napoleon that her father refused to allow her to go to him. Instead, she was supposed to spend two months in Austria, and join him on Elba later.

But obviously that’s not what happened.

In early May, it was noted that she was still upset and crying frequently. By May 8, however, she was writing to him about how gorgeous Lake Zurich and Constance were.

In early June, she wrote that she “loved him more tenderly than ever.” (Ch 13)

In July, she went to Aix for a cure…with a royal babysitter assigned by her father: General Adam Neipperg.

In August, Napoleon sent a messenger to her with a request: she must leave for Elba right away; he’d already arranged a ship for her. Palmer characterizes this incident as a rescue attempt, aimed at breaking Marie Louise free of her father and babysitter. Marie Louise reported the incident to Neipperg and her father and told them both she didn’t want to go to Elba. From that moment on, she turned her back on Napoleon.

But is it so shocking that Napoleon would have tried to “rescue” her? She had told him she loved him and wanted to be with him. It’s natural he’d take drastic action to help her and her son return to him.

I wish I had a better grasp of what her true feelings for Napoleon were. All in all, I’m probably being too hard on Marie Louise. This was a traumatic few months, and she was still just 22. I’m just a super-nosy person who wants to understand what she felt so I know how to feel about her. YMMV.

Another Marie Louise Question

Just throwing this out there in case anyone can point me to the answer: Why did anyone think it was necessary for Marie Louise to get Parma and Piacenza in the first place? Was there a precedent for a dethroned empress, no matter how highly born, to be created sovereign of her own territory? She was one of the victor’s daughters, I get it. But this was not an age friendly to women. I’m curious as to why it was ever proposed that she should be given her own territory to rule. Her own estate, sure. But a territory to rule?

Compare this situation to 1866, when Prussia defeated Hanover (and other sovereign states) in the Austro-Prussian War. No one came up with a new job for the dethroned King George V of Hanover or his wife. Ditto for Duke Adolph of Nassau. Why did Marie Louise rate such special treatment in 1815? I’m not saying it wasn’t a good thing…just that I’m surprised a bunch of dudes took a 22-year-old woman’s career needs into consideration.

Caveats

• Maybe it’s just me, but I felt like there was a lot of battle detail and I’m not sure the focus of this book called for it. If my goal is to learn more about the relationship between Napoleon and Marie Louise – a fair goal, based on the title of the book – I don’t really care about who broke through whose lines at Austerlitz or where the Army of Bohemia made camp on the way to Paris in 1814. True, it’s part of the overall story, but it doesn’t lend anything to an understanding of Marie Louise or her relationship with Napoleon. And if you’re interested in the battle details, this probably isn’t the book you’d reach for in the first place. I skimmed the battle details, anxious to get back to more court goings-on.

Should You Read This Book?

If you’re interested in Marie Louise or the Habsburgs, yes. It’s a fast, easy read that gives you a lot of background on her father, Emperor Franz, and a fair amount of detail on her post-Napoleon life. For even more detail, you may want to follow this with Napoleon's Other Wife by Deborah Jay. The writing quality of Palmer is superior, but Jay brings some new sources to the story based on her research in Parma, where Marie Louise eventually ruled as duchess.

Meet Agnes

Agnes Barron’s parents were Irish, and moved to Paris after they married. Her father inherited “the enormous fortunes of the house of Barron, Mexico,” but preferred to live in Europe. The Mexican connection intrigues me, but she doesn’t talk much about it in this book.

There are plenty of lighthearted funny moments in the beginning – she describes (in excruciating detail) the décor of her mom’s receiving room in their Paris mansion. “The taste of that time was indeed atrocious,” she writes, and boy, she’s not kidding. The room was upholstered in yellow and red, with matching poufs and curtains with pom-pom tassels.

She grew up in a very cosmopolitan family – they spent the Season in London, and summered in Dieppe. That’s where, as a young girl, she met her future husband, Baron Alexander de Stoeckl, who worked for the Russian embassy in London.

Alexander’s father had also been a Russian diplomat. Stationed in Washington, DC, he’d married an American named Eliza Howard. She was the only American-born woman in the diplomatic corps during Lincoln’s presidency. After her husband’s death, Eliza settled in Paris.

Five years after they first met, Alexander married Agnes. The couple had a daughter, Zoia.

Agnes & Grand Dukes

After a few years as a diplomat, her husband took a position attached to the household of Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich. As Agnes says, “I was thrown into the most frivolous, smart, corrupt society of the time” (56). But years later, something went wrong with that relationship. Agnes says, “…after many happy years, our relations with Countess Torby became difficult, for reason of no interest except to ourselves.” (74) Whatever the conflict was, society took sides. Agnes notes that King Edward VII took her side.

Agnes and Alexander didn’t have any trouble finding a new position. Grand Duchess George Mikhailovich (born Princess Maria of Greece and Denmark) asked that Alexander be made her chamberlain, to be paid from her private fortune. Nicholas II approved, and in early 1908, the Stoeckls took up their new positions – and were finally able to visit Russia. Staying out of Russia had been one of the conditions of working for Grand Duke Michael, since his morganatic marriage made it difficult (if not impossible) for him to return legally.

Agnes and Alexander stayed with Grand Duchess George for years, traveling with her to England in 1914 for her daughter Xenia’s health. They were unable to get back to Russia when war broke out, and because of the revolution in Russia, they never saw Grand Duke George again. The Bolsheviks imprisoned him, but he was able to write to them occasionally so they had some vague idea of what was happening to him. Agnes’s daughter Zoia even suggested someone go talk to Litvinoff, “the non-recognised Bolshevist Ambassador” to beg for George’s freedom. Agnes went, but in the end, her visit didn’t help. The Bolsheviks shot George in early 1919.

The revolution also cut off Grand Duchess George’s appanage payments, and Agnes and her husband had to economize – fast. She spent most of what personal savings she had left on Zoia’s wedding in late 1918. Zoia married Alik Poklewski-Koziell, who had as groomsmen Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich and Count Joseph Potocki. Grand Duchess George’s daughters, Nina and Xenia, were bridesmaids.

Agnes On Her Own

In 1921, the Grand Duchess remarried and Agnes and her husband were on their own. She describes the next 10 years as “the most bitter in my life.” (183) Agnes found work as a saleswoman – first for linen, then gowns. When her husband got sick, she started selling jewels to help pay for his care. He died on July 23, 1926, leaving Agnes to make her way alone in the world.

She took a job as a sort of fashion marketer for Reville, where her royal connections helped bring in new clients. She worked there for over two years and hated it. “I was so unhappy going there in the morning, crossing Oxford Street, that I often wished a bus would run over me.” (187)

In 1931, her daughter and grandkids moved in with her while Zoia’s husband relocated to Katowice, Poland, where he’d been offered a job. To help support her family, she and Zoia sold the last of their jewels. Once her daughter was settled in Poland, she visited frequently. His family’s palace, Lancut, was an oasis of luxury that reminded her of better days. The Duke and Duchess of Kent came for a visit at Zoia’s request – as Agnes notes, “the first time a member of the British Royal Family had visited that country” (204).

Agnes divided her time between London and Poland. When we get to 1938, the book changes dramatically – instead of a fluid narrative, we get selected entries from Agnes’s diary, beginning on September 14, 1938. In August of 1939, she left Poland, aware that it might be for the last time. Her diary entries give a short but interesting glimpse of how people who lived on the border with Germany saw war preparations being made even as Hitler spoke of peace. Zoia and the kids joined her in London later that month.

Continuing their friendship with the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Agnes and Zoia visit Coppins frequently. She notes that both George and Marina thought war could be prevented, as late as August 30, 1939. Agnes and Zoia both believed they were wrong – they’d seen German fortifications being built along the border with Poland firsthand. When the Germans bombed Poland on September 1, Zoia’s husband survived. He made it from Poland to the Romanian border and fled, just ahead of the Germans. He made his way to Paris and then to England, where he rejoined Agnes and Zoia.

Strangely, the book ends with the Duke of Kent’s death in 1942. It’s as if his death robbed Agnes of the strength or will to share more about her experiences during the war. Or maybe she thought that was the last event her readers would be interested in. Either way, the last diary entry we get is from August 24, 1942. The half-page epilogue is short and simple – it doesn’t mention what happened to her, Zoia, or Alik during the rest of the war. It just says her end can’t be long now.

But it wasn’t – she lived to age 94, dying in 1968.

Interesting Tidbits

• Baron Alexander de Bodisco, the Russian minister plenipotentiary posted to Washington, DC in the early 1850s, married an American girl named Harriet Williams. She later lived in St. Petersburg.
• De Bodisco’s replacement was Baron Edward de Stoeckl, Agnes’s father-in-law.
• One summer, there was a reception at the Russian legation in Washington. A “Monsieur Davidoff” who later became the Russian minister in Tokyo suggested to Eliza de Stoeckl that she greet a visiting Russian admiral in Russian. He taught her a phrase, which she learned and duly repeated at the party. Unfortunately, this was a prank – he’d taught her how to say, “How do you do, you son of a bitch?”
• As a child, Agnes’s husband watched Lincoln’s funeral procession.
• While in Paris in 1913, Grand Duchess Anastasia Mikhailovna (widow of the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin) told Baron Maurice de Rothschild she wanted a ball. But it was August, and no one was in the city. So he rounded up whoever walked into the Ritz, whether he knew them or not, and invited them to his ball. Normally, guests were allowed to wander in and out of his rooms at will, but not this time. When Agnes tried to show her daughter Zoia around, they found the doors locked. When Agnes asked Maurice why, he said it was because he didn’t know any of the guests. When Agnes asked why, he said the Grand Duchess wanted a ball, and he made it happen – even if he had to do it with hundreds of people none of them knew.
• One time, Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich had a crush on an American girl, and wrote her love letters in English. When he showed her a couple of them, Agnes was surprised how good they were. Later, when she went to borrow a book from his library, he saw that one she grabbed and told her not to take that one – it was an anthology of love letters, the source of the suspiciously good letters he sent his crush.
• While in Russia, with Grand Duchess George, Agnes and Alexander went to a party where the author Elinor Glyn was also a guest. It was her first trip to Russia, and she asked Alexander, “When do the orgies begin?” (89)
• While in Claridge’s Hotel in London with Grand Duchess George, Agnes threw herself a birthday party with lots of activities like “potato races, three-legged races and other mad games.” The widowed Queen Alexandra “wished a high-kick trial; she said she could kick higher than anybody.” So Alexander de Stoeckl held up a toy over his head. Alexandra kicked high enough to touch the toy, but fell backward and smacked her head on the floor – hard enough to come up bleeding thanks to a tortoiseshell comb in her hair. “She said it was no matter. We were rather worried but it proved nothing serious.” (101)
• In the biggest stomach-churning WTF in the entire book, Agnes describes the beginning of her trip to England in 1914 aboard Nicholas II’s yacht “Almaz.” That yacht took them as far as Odessa, during which time her daughter fell for the captain. But that’s not the WTF part. Apparently there was also this: “There was a monkey on board who lived with a rabbit; I hated to see them together. The monkey would pull the rabbit’s eye out and let it go back with a snap – the rabbit was quite hypnotized by the monkey.” (143) I’m queasy. I’m actually queasy, this is so gross.
• Before leaving Poland in the wake of the German attack in September of 1939, Agnes’s son-in-law Alik saved one tiny heirloom: “the cars were announced. The guns could be heard. Alik went into his writing room, still filled with objects dear to him. On a small table his eyes fell on a Faberge electric bell. He took a pocket knife and cut the cord: ‘At least the Germans won’t get this’, so a little silver was saved and the bell!” (235)

Should You Read It?

Yes. There are so many interesting tidbits here. They’re not always historically significant, as you can tell from my selection above, but if you’re interested in royals, they’re fun and revealing.

After reading several other firsthand accounts relative to World War II and its run-up (Bella Fromm’s Blood and Banquets, Missie Vassilchikov’s Berlin Diaries), it was interesting to add the last eighth of this book as a comparison, with its descriptions of Germany’s preparations for war from a Polish perspective.

Because of Agnes’s life, the mood of the book is a pretty consistent downward trend – we go from riches to royals to war to scraping to get by to slight recovery to war again. But if it feels depressing to read, imagine what it was like to live that trajectory. This book is well worth a Saturday or Sunday afternoon to see what that was like.

Meet Augusta

In the author’s words: “This book was never meant to be entertaining; it is quite simply a chronological collection of all available facts directly or indirectly related to Princess Auguste.”

But it is entertaining if you’re interested in 18^th century royalty. Augusta’s mom was Princess Augusta of Great Britain, a sister of King George III. Augusta’s husband was Duke (later king) Friedrich of Wurttemberg. Her father was Duke Karl of Brunswick. Her sister-in-law was Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna, later Empress of Russia. Tangentially, all their stories help illuminate Augusta’s.

Augusta was distantly related to Catherine the Great, who took her under wing when she arrived at the Russian court with her husband, whom Catherine had appointed as her governor-general of Vyborg (Finland). But Friedrich was…a dick. There’s no way around it. He was a dick. He was verbally and physically abusive to Augusta (and his second wife). He was moody, petulant, selfish, and almost incapable of seeing a situation from anyone else’s point of view. At the same time, he was smart and resilient – even Napoleon later described him as the most intelligent man on a throne in Europe.

Augusta was smart, too, but no one gave her credit for it. She was also fiercely independent and did NOT like being told what to do – at least not by Friedrich. She stood her ground against Friedrich, against her father, and even against Catherine the friggin’ Great when it was necessary. No one gave her credit for this, either.

Prior to this book, when Augusta was mentioned at all, it was as a flighty, flirty woman who just made things difficult for everyone. For Friedrich, by irritating him and not doing what he wanted 24/7. And for Catherine, by poaching hot guys at the Russian court that the empress was interested in. Neither of these things are actually true, but somehow, that’s what went down in history. Long story short, Auguste and Friedrich separated, and Catherine arranged for her to chillax and recover at Castle Lohde in Estonia. She sent her there with an old friend, Wilhelm Pohlmann, to look after her and run the castle and manage her expenses. But less than two years after her arrival, Augusta was dead.

That’s the only incontrovertible fact the public knew.

Stories and gossip flew between Brunswick and Russia. The two most popular versions of the story went something like this: (a) Catherine imprisoned and murdered Augusta for daring to have an affair with someone she had dibs on, or (b) Augusta slept with (or was raped by) Pohlmann and died giving birth to his illegitimate child.

Neither of these versions are true.

You’ll have to read this book to find out what really happened.

Caveats

I got nothin’. Seriously. This book was a labor of love and it shows.

Does it veer into occasional tangents, about other unfortunate relatives from Brunswick who perished in Russia? Yes.

Does it linger quite a while on Augusta’s parents at the beginning of the book? Yes.

By the very nature of a tangent, these digressions don’t necessarily affect Augusta’s story. But with them, you get a richer picture of the time Augusta lived in and her family history. Just be aware that you’re 21% into the book (page 136 of 590, according to Kindle’s readout) before we get into the meat of Augusta’s story.

The only real caveat I have is that there’s only an electronic version of the book – no hard copy exists (yet?). And because of the digital format, the author had to make a decision how to present footnotes and endnotes. So footnotes are hyperlinked using one set of numbers, and endnotes are given but not hyperlinked, then provided at the end of the book. But the note that explains this appears at the end of the book, so I spent awhile being very confused by the two sets of numbers, only some of which were hyperlinked.

Should You Read It?

Yes. If you have any interest in August or her family, this book is a must.

If you don’t have a specific interest in her, it’s still a great look at Catherine the Great and how she dealt with a man who was a notoriously abusive husband in her court.

In the best possible way, this book makes anything I was working on obsolete. The author put 10 years of research and travel into this book, and nothing I could do as a total amateur (or, as I like to put it, a girl with an internet connection) could compare.

I’m keeping this brief since I’m a little behind on my reviews right now. Trust me when I tell you to read this book if you’re interested in Ka‘iulani’s story. The author touched on topics I wouldn’t have thought would be included in a book for young readers – this includes Likelike’s dramatic suicide threat, and Queen Emma’s mischievous recipe for winning the election.

Caveats

• Occasionally marred by fictional touches. This was probably for the benefit of young readers, to keep them engaged in the story. I get it, but this sort of tactic makes it really easy for an author to overstep their bounds, even one who’s clearly done as much research as Linnéa. A couple quick examples:
  • “Go, all of you,” Likelike whispered to the retainers who were nursing her. Obediently they left, closing the door with a soft thud...Her skin was gray in the muted light, and she was eerily thin. (52)
  • Ka‘iulani couldn't help but notice that he was stomping around and muttering about this state of affairs. (64)
  • She made a few painfully polite remarks to him - then pointedly asked to be taken to her rooms. Her feelings about Koa were so strong that she couldn't even bear to talk to him. (129)
• The occasional overstep or questionable judgment about what Ka‘iulani was thinking or planning. One quick example – the author writes that Ka‘iulani was prepared to take the throne in early-to-mid 1898, and that she likely had chosen her candidates for cabinet posts: “How could she have done otherwise?” (189) Well, by continuing to believe the monarchy was past resurrection – something she had clearly believed at various points in the previous years (including when she wrote to her father that she didn’t even want to return to Hawai‘i from Europe). I’m not convinced Ka‘iulani ever believed the throne was in reach, and with no documented proof, the “how could she not” argument holds no weight with me.
• The occasional typo/grammatical error. A couple examples:
  • A reference to the Belle Epoch (should be Belle Epoque – either keep both words in French or translate both of them to “Beautiful Epoch” or “Beautiful Age”)
  • Constant use of “the Davies” to refer to the entire Davies family (instead of the correct "the Davieses")
  • Mention of U.S.S. The Maine – I’d always heard it referred to as “the USS Maine” – and that’s how the Navy’s history site refers to it. Maybe this is a technicality and her version is right, but it struck me as off.

Should You Read It?

If you’re interested in Ka‘iulani, yes. If you’re not interested in her specifically, you might enjoy Julia Flynn Siler’s Lost Kingdom, which tells the story of the Hawaiian Revolution from a wider perspective.

The challenge in reading – and, presumably, writing – this book is that it’s subtle. Mary’s life wasn’t as dramatic as, say, her German or Romanov relatives who faced revolution as an aftereffect of war. On the surface, she lived a relatively guarded, placid life.

Of course, every human being has fears, wants, needs, and other relatable emotions, and Mary is no different. But she struggled to keep so many of those emotions under wraps that it’s not always easy to tease them out again.

This is a very well-done biography, but it must be said that the subject isn’t the most engaging royal of her generation. That doesn’t mean she isn’t worthy of attention. It just means you’re not going to get as cracking a story here as you do with, say, Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark (her sister-in-law) or Princess Marie Louise (her first cousin once removed).

The author does a very nice job of clearing up a few misconceptions about Mary’s life – particularly, why she didn’t attend Princess Elizabeth’s wedding to Prince Philip in 1947, and what Downton Abbey got wrong about her life.

What this book does very well is force you to respect the role of a working royal. It’s called “work” for a reason. Actors frequently talk about how exhausting press junkets are when they have a new movie or TV show being released. Well, imagine the movie is your whole life. It doesn’t end. And neither does the junket. Sure, you have a few co-stars to share the burden with, but you have to be ready to go, to answer questions, to smile for the camera, to look your best, to hit your mark dozens of times per month, hundreds of times per year. It’s exhausting. And Mary did it without complaining because it was her duty. You can’t help but come away from this book feeling like she had an iron will that she only ever imposed on herself.

I’m going to have to go back to that Famous Jewel Collectors book, though, because this book didn’t put much emphasis on jewelry. When Mary married, Basford notes that she didn’t have much of a collection, so that’s what she asked for when people wondered what to get her. The only time she’s mentioned as taking pride in her jewels, though, was at Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation. She collected 18^th century fans, Fabergé trinkets, and linen…but there’s nothing about her having a passion for jewels, either wearing them, revamping them, or acquiring them. A mystery that requires more digging!

Interesting Tidbits

• In the fall of 1914, Mary had the idea to give a Christmas gift to every British soldier fighting in World War I. She raised enough money to give a gift to more than 2.5 million people (soldiers, sailors, prisoners of war, nurses, and next of kin of casualties). After the initial gift had been sent out, they kept making more of the brass tins filled with cigarettes, sweets, spices, chocolate, and other little goodies. When the Lusitania sunk in May 1915, it went down with 45+ tons of brass coming from New York to make more tins. It took until 1920 for all the gifts to be delivered. (55)
  
  
• When Mary and her husband Harry inherited and moved to Harewood House in 1929, they found the 40-acre lake perfect for hockey matches. They would take the kids out and play, along with residents from the estate. Mary’s position? Goalie. That. That right there is the kind of detail I love because it’s so humanizing. (141)
  
  
• Mary suffered from Graves Disease, an autoimmune disease that sends the thyroid into overdrive. It wasn’t diagnosed until 1935, and an operation seemed to help. (178)
  
  
• Mary’s son, George, became a prisoner of war during World War II – he was held at Colditz with other high-value prisoners. In March 1945, Hitler signed his death warrant but the camp commandant refused to carry it out since the war was all but over. (214)

Caveats

None, as long as you go in knowing that we’re talking about a life of duty. This is not a gossipy bio – this is a calm, measured bio.

Well, there is one nitpicky point I’ll drop here. I’m sure it’s a product of faulty copy-editing (and maybe an automated spellchecker), but the show Downton Abbey is repeatedly referred to as Downtown Abbey.

Should You Read This?

If you’re a fan of her mom, yes.

If you’re a fan of the modern royals, yes – this is a good look at how the role of a working royal began to evolve.

But if you’re a thrillseeker who prefers big drama in her biographies, this might not be your cup of tea.

The bulk of this book covers the two most famous of Queen Victoria’s grandsons: Wilhelm of Prussia and George of Great Britain. To a lesser degree, you get coverage of Albert Victor (Eddy) of Great Britain, Henry of Prussia, Ernst Ludwig (Ernie) of Hesse and by Rhine, Alfred of Edinburgh (Affie), Christian Victor (Christle) and Albert (Abbie) of Schleswig-Holstein, Arthur of Connaught, Charles Edward (Charlie) of Albany, and the three Battenberg sons: Alexander (Drino), Leopold, and Maurice.

Wilhelm and George get top billing here, perhaps not surprisingly. They’re the most visible on the world stage, and there are plenty of published sources available to draw from. The lack of previously published sources didn’t leave the author much to draw from for some of the others.

More sources have since come onto the market, including Diana Mandache’s books containing the Edinburgh letters (Dearest Missy and its sequel, coming out this fall). In addition, Kristina Urbach’s Go-Betweens for Hitler devotes some space to Charles Edward of Albany.

As you can tell from the title of that book, we now have a problem when it comes to this book: its coverage ends in 1918. But since most of the men were still alive at the end of World War II, you’re not getting the full story of their lives. That’s fine, since the time limit was firmly established in the title - it’s not a surprise. Still, I found myself wanting a more complete picture of what happened after the war.

If you also have Kindle Unlimited and can read this for free, I recommend it. If not, I think I’d steer you toward the same sources the author used to get a bigger picture of these men. These include but are not limited to:

• Theo Aronson, Crowns in Conflict
• Roger Fulford (ed.), Beloved Mama, Your Dear Letter
• Harold Nicolson, King George V
• Hannah Pakula, An Uncommon Woman
• Frederick Ponsonby, Recollections of Three Reigns

Tidbits

• Queen Victoria doubled as the tooth fairy. “More indulgent with her grandchildren than she had been with her own children, she was sure to make their holidays fun, giving them a shilling for every baby tooth they lost; and, when Willy had a tooth extracted she gave him five shillings – a crown.” (37)
  
  
• Louise of Belgium’s son-in-law named Marie Louise of Nowhere’s brother his heir. If you’ve been keeping up with my videos, you know that Louise of Belgium’s daughter, Dora, married Ernst Gunther of Schleswig-Holstein. He later inherited the duchy, and named Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein’s brother, Albert, as his heir. Unforeseen connections! “…there were stays at their paternal relations’ estates in Augustenburg, where they spent time with their cousins, Calma; Ernst Gunther, who would eventually inherit the duchy, naming Abbie as his heir; and Augusta Victoria (Dona), who would go on to marry their maternal cousin, Willy of Prussia.” (75)
  
  
• Queen Victoria wanted her widower son-in-law, Louis of Hesse and by Rhine, to marry her youngest daughter, Beatrice. “Neither Louis nor Beatrice was attracted to the other and they were both relieved when they discovered that the Church of England forbade prohibited marriage between brothers- and sisters-in-law. The disgruntled Queen suggested that the rule should be changed in this instance but her hopes were dashed and nothing came of the plan.” (84)
  
  
• Queen Victoria’s son, Arthur of Connaught, fell in love with the Duchess of Westminster. “Most irksome of all, though, for the Queen, was the fact that her handsome son enjoyed several affairs and soon developed an unnerving infatuation with his sister-in-law, the Princess of Wales, with whom he danced virtually every dance at the Marlborough House balls, before falling ‘violently in love’ with the wife of the Duke of Westminster.” (87) That duchess of Westminster? Meet her here, in my post about kokoshnik tiaras.
  
  
• Christian Victor (Christle)’s military service and death inspired his cousin, Maurice, to join the army. Christian Victor died of enteric fever at age 33 in the year 1900, after participating in the Ashanti Expedition, the Battles of Omdurman and Khartoum, and being posted to South Africa during the Boer War. “It was left to his sister, Thora, to break the news to the Queen, whose first thoughts, despite her own grief, were for his fellow officers. She had already agreed to open the Marble Arch for a parade of the returning soldiers, and not wishing to dampen their rejoicing, she asked that the news of Christle’s death be kept secret until the procession was over. Ironically , in the light of later events, on hearing of his death, Christle’s young cousin, Maurice Battenberg, went late one evening in his dressing gown to Thora’s room at Balmoral and told her softly, ‘It may comfort you to know that I have decided to join the 60th when I am old enough.’ (164)
  
  
• Wilhelm II’s son had a swearing problem. “Basically, Willy found it difficult to understand his sons, and his erratic nature made it equally difficult for them to understand him. On being told, for example, that the Crown Prince’s tutor had had to reprimand the boy for swearing, Willy jokingly responded: ‘The devil! He must be broken of that; but where did the little Schcisskerl [sic] (the very same phrase complained of) hear that expression?’ (185) This reminds me of that 80s commercial where the dad asked his son where he learned how to use drugs and the son said, “You, all right? I learned it by watching you.” Wilhelm swore, too, after all. 😉
  
  
• George V was not a fan of opera. “Cousin George in England was far less discerning, once remarking that he didn’t like opera except for La Bohème because it was the shortest…” (267)
  
  
• Albert of Schleswig-Holstein (Abbie) felt very British, just as his sister, Marie Louise, did. “Abbie of Schleswig-Holstein was also in a difficult situation since he, too, had been raised in England where all his family lived. Only seven years earlier, he had corrected the French Empress, who mistook his nationality, by telling her: ‘I am not a German. I was born at Windsor and my mother is an English woman.’” (294)

This book opens with a summary of Rasputin’s murder in December of 1916. It proceeds to give you enough background information on Rasputin and Felix Yusupov to understand the events of that night. It explains what happened to Felix afterward – exile, and fleeing Russia during the revolution.

Then we switch settings to Hollywood in the 1930s, where we learn a bit about the establishment of the early studios and Irving Thalberg, who headed MGM. Napley gives a brief overview of the movie’s creation and filming (without the level of detail you get from Mercedes de Acosta’s memoir). He summarizes what you see on-screen in Chapter Eight, and moves on to summarize the release and reviews. He explains how Fanny Holtzmann enters the story in Chapter Nine (although without as much detail as you get in Holtzmann’s nephew’s biography of her).

This is where we get into the meat of the story, about the Yusupov lawsuit against MGM. Chapter Eleven is where we get into the nuts and bolts of the proceedings, delivered here with an incredible (and sometimes excruciating) level of detail. Long story short, the author takes the backseat to the details, apart from the occasional snippy aside. He’ll tell you when he thinks the barrister’s approach is useless or misguided, or when he should have done something else entirely. But for the most part, you just get to read a detailed summary of the trial with little authorial interference.

Napley was actually present during the 1934 trial, and his goal in writing this was to “help readers live through these intriguing events” (ix). While writing, he had a copy of the transcript to work with, and it shows. Plus, he inserts at least one brief event that he remembers seeing but that didn’t make it into the transcript (it doesn’t affect the outcome at all).

All in all, this was more detail than I expected to find about the trial, including the exact words Irina used to answer many of the questions put to her. That’s what I appreciated most – getting my heroine’s exact words.

That’s the hardest part of writing about lesser-known royal women (and being an amateur historian, without access to funding or archives). I’m deeply grateful to have found this book so I could see how Irina behaved on the stand. (Here’s a hint: she was a rock.)

Should You Read It?

If you’re interested in this case, yes.

If you’re deeply interested in the Yusupovs, yes.

If you’re not, you can probably skip this one and just watch my video instead. 😉

If you’re like me, you hear the word “Dolgorouky” and think about Tsar Alexander II’s second (morganatic) wife, Ekaterina. Sofka Dolgorouky comes from that family, but isn’t descended from that particular branch of the family tree. Her mother was Countess Sophy Bobrinsky, a descendant of Catherine the Great through her son with Grigori Orlov, Alexis Bobrinsky. Her father was Prince Peter Dolgorouky. Nowhere in this book is Ekaterina Dolgorouky mentioned, but it would have been nice to know how she was connected.

Born in 1907, Sofka’s early years were lived in luxury. Her parents separated – her mom, Sophy, was more interested in becoming a surgeon and a pilot than in being a proper St. Petersburg hostess.

During the Russian Revolution, her family fled to Crimea, and then to Europe in 1919. Sofka drifted between Rome, Paris, Glasgow, and London. In Britain, she befriended the Duke and Duchess of Hamilton, and became the duchess’s secretary. Later, she worked for Laurence Olivier.

She married Leo Zinovieff and had two kids, Peter and Ian. They divorced, and she remarried Grey Skipwith, probably the true love of her life. They had a son, Patrick. Throughout these years, she lived life on her own terms. She neglected her kids (there’s no getting around this fact). She took numerous lovers (around 100 during her lifetime, by her own count). She didn’t care about social norms and didn’t care that neither of her in-laws particularly liked her. She was unabashedly, unashamedly herself, for better or for worse.

When World War II broke out, Sofka crossed the channel to help her mom, who was ill in Paris. She ended up in Vittel, a Nazi prison camp – not a concentration camp, but a prison camp for women with British passports. There, she met the communists who would convince her that socialism was the only way to reverse the terrible economic and social inequity she’d seen up close and personal in Russia but also in Britain.

In the prison camp, she learned that her husband (who’d joined the RAF) had been killed in action. After an intense period of mourning, she had a short-lived affair with another woman, and fell in love with a Jewish man who would be deported and killed in a concentration camp. She also developed lifelong friendships with some of the other imprisoned women.

After the horrors of war, Sofka drifted once more between London and Paris. She joined the Communist Party, but doesn’t seem to have done much more than attend meetings and do a little public speaking. She had an MI5 file, but it mostly reported on her social comings-and-goings. Later, she worked as a tour guide for Soviet-approved groups and was able to cross the Iron Curtain.

Throughout her life, she loved books, poetry, words, and language, but reading became even more important to her as she slowed down. Having settled in Cornwall with the last love of her life, a man named Jack King, she traveled less and read more. She gave her diary to her granddaughter, the author, which eventually led her on a quest to retrace Sofka’s steps and learn more about her life.

Tidbits

• Sofka (the author’s grandmother) claimed in her autobiography that she was being groomed as a potential bride for the heir to the throne, Alexei. She’d been told this by her own grandmother: “Later in life, Granny told me that it had been decided that the next Empress had better not be a foreigner and the Child was among the suitable candidates and was to be groomed for the post…” The author’s uncle told her this simply wasn’t true. Her reaction? “I prefer to believe that this story reflects the lost hope of Sofka’s wistful grandmother rather than pure invention. Sofka herself was proud enough to mention it, and skeptical enough to reject it as irrelevant.” (58)
  
  
• Sofka’s mom, Sofia Dolgorouky, was one of the first women who went to the Ecole Militaire d’Aviation in France in 1913. She brought a plane back with her and kept it at Gatchina.
  
  
• Sofka’s uncle, Sergei, was Grand Duchess Xenia’s lover. He was married, and his wife died mysteriously in Crimea during their exile. “She had been ill, possibly with pneumonia, and had taken too much medicine. Gossips said it was suicide; life had become unbearable for her after discovering that her marriage was a convenient screen for Sergei’s long-standing affair with the Grand-Duchess Xenia” (74).
  
  
• Sofka helped arranged the wedding of Margaret Douglas-Hamilton, who married Jimmy Drummond-Hay in Salisbury Cathedral. Later, Pamela Bowes-Lyon would marry Margaret’s brother, Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton.
  
  
• Her son, Patrick Skipwith, was in the 1948 movie Anna Karenina (starring Vivien Leigh). He played Anna’s son, Sergei.

Caveats

• This isn’t an academic work, so there are no footnotes and a limited bibliography. She does a pretty good job of telling you where a piece of information came from, so this isn’t a deal-breaker - just something to be aware of if you’re mining this for information as well as reading for pleasure.
  
  
• The book combines two threads: the author’s search for facts about her grandmother, and her grandmother’s life story. At times, the switch between the two was distracting – especially in the initial chapters, when the average reader is struggling to differentiate between all the similarly named historical figures (Sophy, Sofka the grandmother, Sofka the author). Later in the book, when the author’s trying to figure out the truth about what happened at the French prison camp, these threads are more compatible, more valuable to the story, and less jarring.
  
  
• A lot of the author’s descriptions during her travels were negative and that eventually turned me off. In general, she describes tourists as fat, loud, and annoying. She describes many food and smells as gross or disgusting. These were her emotions and her experiences, so I’m not suggesting she should have changed or eliminated them. I am saying that it ended up conveying the impression that unless something was luxurious and perfect, she didn’t like it – and if a person wasn’t helpful in her search, they were annoying. For example: the other woman in the train compartment on the way to Russia “smelled more strongly than anyone I’ve ever encountered and snored like a bull all night,” (25), tourists in Crimea “all carried too many bulging plastic bags and made a good deal of noise” (71), there, she saw “vividly sunburned Russians in very few clothes; this was evidently the ‘nylon’ season” (73); the Crimean tourist complex was “vast, unappealing…hideous” (73). The hotel’s breakfast was “spectacularly unappetizing: fatty sausages floating in water; fly-blown bananas chopped into segments with the blackened skin skill on” (75); nearby sanatorium residents were “eating fried things out of grubby plastic boxes” (77), and the administrator was “an unfriendly peroxide-blonde” (77). You get the picture.

Should You Read It?

Yes. Despite the caveats, there are so many fascinating tidbits here. The author did a brave thing in talking to estranged or distant family members about her grandmother – because many of them didn’t care for her and told stories about her that ended up not being true. It was fun to read as a piece of emotional journalism (aside from the negative descriptions) as well as a story about her grandmother’s amazing life.

Here are the three essays in the book:

Daria, Nicholas II’s Forgotten Cousin

This is a brief look at the life of Countess Daria Beauharnais, Duchess of Leuchtenberg, a second cousin of Tsar Nicholas II (they were both great-grandchildren of Tsar Nicholas I). The last of the Romanovs to stay in Russia, Daria and her husband made it until 1937…when their luck ran out. Daria’s mother was a granddaughter of Field Marshal Kutuzov – she married Duke Eugen Maximilianovich. Belyakova points out the historical irony of Kutuzuov’s descendant marrying a descendant of Empress Josephine (not of Napoleon, though). She first married Prince Leo Mikhailovich Kotchubey. She divorced him in 1911, had a brief second marriage to Captain Vladimir E. Gravenitz, who committed suicide. When the revolution broke out, she made her way to Bavaria, obtained Bavarian citizenship, then went back to Russia. Why? No one knows. As she struggled to survive with no money and no home, an Austrian citizen named Victor Alexandrovich Markezetti saved her from freezing in a snowdrift. They married, and stayed on as Soviet citizens. They were arrested in 1937 on suspicion of being spies. They were both executed.

All Fell in Love with Ella

The longest essay in the book covers Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, born Princess Elizabeth of Hesse and by Rhine (“Ella”). Much has been written elsewhere about Ella, so you’re probably familiar with her story. The good news is that this account contains some new information, particularly about Serge and Ella’s Petersburg residence. There are also a few quotations about Serge and Ella from Russian-language memoirs, so chances are there’s something new for you here even if you’ve read books on Ella before.

The Crimean Captives

This covers the Romanovs held captive in the Crimea between 1917 and 1919, when most of them fled aboard the HMS Marlborough, including Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna and her daughter, Grand Duchess Xenia. It feels like a prequel to The Russian Court at Sea, which describes what happened on the Marlborough (spoiler alert: not much). This section includes a number of unpublished letters from members of the imperial family. If you're interested in this topic, it's also covered well and extensively in Once a Grand Duchess (a great  biography of Grand Duchess Xenia by John Van der Kiste and Coryne Hall).

Caveats

• You should already have a good understanding of the Romanov family and the Russian Revolution before reading this book. It’s written for people who already know the basics, so they aren’t repeated here. For example, the names of family members and government ministers are provided, but not explanations of who they are or how they’re related to the essay’s subject. You just need to know it or be willing to go look it up.
• The English translation was a teensy bit rough in places. Don’t let that scare you. It’s always understandable, just not always the smoothest read.
• Some quotes aren’t footnoted, while others are. For example, we get this tidbit about Grand Duke Sergei: “German princesses seemed boring to him, ‘except one,’ he used to say, and everyone knew whom he meant.” (49) But where did that little quote come from? It’s not footnoted, so we don’t know.

Should You Read This?

If you’re devoted to the Romanovs, yes. If you’re obsessed with Ella, yes. If you’re just a casual reader of royal history, there are fuller accounts you’d probably enjoy more.

First things first: if you’re a woman, you’re probably not going to get along with ol’ Carl here. Throughout the book, he’s disdainful toward women (Stephanie, her mother-in-law Empress Elisabeth, and Elisabeth’s mother-in-law Archduchess Sophie). He absolutely loathed Stephanie, and that hatred permeates every page she’s mentioned on. He didn’t care for Elisabeth, either, but he’s marginally more fair to her than to his aunt-by-marriage.

Here are a few examples:

• How he prefaces a quote from Stephanie’s memoir: “…Stephanie, the second daughter of King Leopold II, blazons forth with her customary lack of modesty and good taste:” (60-61)
• How he makes fun of her for things beyond her control: “Her voice was powerful and closely resembled the foghorns of the Danube tug-boats.” (110)
• In which he advocates spousal abuse: “In his wife, all those qualities were united which were repugnant to him – her hardness of heart, her aggressive contrariness, her monumental tactlessness. She was a bully, a bore, a nagger, and a fool. Having regard to Rudolf’s lack of self-control, it is indeed difficult to explain how he was able to resist the natural reaction to the nagger, namely, to perpetrate an act of violence against her.” (119)
• In which he pretends to have knowledge of female sexuality: “Now it is a fact that women, when sexually neglected, become irritable, which makes life with them very unpleasant. But when a woman is already unpleasant by nature, like Stephanie, then sexual neglect renders her utterly unbearable.” (121)

I can’t even.

In that third quote, he’s basically saying he doesn’t understand how Rudolf kept from beating the shit out of Stephanie. That is unacceptable in a book he purports to be based on “all the authentic documents known to exist. In it no place is given to romantic fictions...” (xiii)

But let’s move on. This is not a book about Stephanie. This is a book about Rudolf.

So what does it say about Rudolf? Less than one might imagine, considering his closeness to potential source material. There is not much here to differentiate the chapters on Rudolf’s early education and young adulthood from the standard biographies that had already been published by Mitis and Bibl. Lonyay himself acknowledges his debt to both these authors.

Overall, his conclusion is that Rudolf’s mental illness – which led to his later suicide – stemmed from a lack of parental love. Rudolf’s first tutor, the evil Gondrecourt, instilled a mistrust that developed into a sort of paranoia and led Rudolf to see enemies where there were none. Add to that the disastrous marriage (waaaaay overplayed by Lonyay), his lack of an heir, the never-ending reign of his father during which he held no power or responsibility, and you have a recipe for Rudolf wanting to escape it all via suicide.

Except, Lonyay notes, he was a coward and needed someone to commit suicide with him. Enter Mary Vetsera.

I agree with Lonyay in this respect – Rudolf and Mary were not participants in a great love story. Rudolf used her, and she allowed herself to be used. This conclusion doesn’t feel shocking to a modern reader, but perhaps this was the first time an author had so dispassionately disassembled the “great love story” fiction.

Caveats

Aside from the non-stop sexism, you mean?

• The author’s attitude. In the preface, he has the balls to…oh, hell, just read it yourself: “As a regular soldier, courage always appealed to me. Therefore I wish to express my admiration for the courage of those who thrust upon me their uninvited advice on a subject of which they had no knowledge, and which, for the benefit of my work, I avoided accepting.” He should have boiled all that down to two words, and I bet you know which two I mean.
• The lack of much original material. As I read this, it felt like all the interesting tidbits were footnoted, having already appeared in Mitis or Bibl. Of course, Lonyay had access to Stephanie’s papers, so he’s able to add some quotes from her diary and a copy of the Hoyos statement of what happened at Mayerling, which round out the story. But for the most part, this book doesn’t add much to Rudolf’s biography in terms of what other authors have already presented. All the details about his education, early liberalism, and his unsigned articles in friend Moritz Szeps’s newspaper had already appeared elsewhere.

Should You Read It?

Only if you’re doing a Mayerling deep-dive. Otherwise, there’s nothing here you won’t find in a better examination of either Mayerling or Rudolf himself.

This book covers the Romanov voyage out of Russia on the HMS Marlborough, which left Yalta on April 11, 1919. That ship carried the Dowager Tsarina Maria Feodorovna, her daughter Xenia and her family, three generations of Yusupovs, and the Grand Dukes Nicholas Nikolaevich and Peter Nikolaevich and their families. The book’s purported timeline covers the 16-day trip from Russia to Malta, where they stayed a week before splitting up to go to the south of France, Italy, and England.

But not everyone on board got along. The primary conflict in the book is the bad blood between the “Ai-Todors” and the “Dulbers” – essentially, Maria Feodorovna and her family vs. Nicholas Nikolaevich and his family. During the previous two years of quasi-exile in the Crimea, the two families had as little to do with each other as possible, despite living together at the Dulber estate for several months under Bolshevik guard.

What did that bad blood stem from?

1. Nicholas and Peter’s wives, two Montenegrin princesses who were also sisters, had introduced Tsar Nicholas and Tsarina Alexandra to Rasputin.
2. One of those princesses had arrived in Russia married to someone else – and, after a divorce, married Nicholas.
3. Finally, Nicholas was a powerful figure within the family, and Maria Feodorovna didn’t always trust that he wouldn’t use that power to usurp some (or all) of her son’s power.

If you didn’t already know all this background info, Welch gives you summaries as it’s necessary within the narrative. But these asides break up what little narrative there is, making the book feel disorganized – a collection of anecdotes rather than a story with a point.

The Problem: Overdramatized Conflicts

My biggest problem with this book? The conflict between the “Ai-Todors” and the “Dulbers” was largely internal. No one had a fist fight or a public screaming match. The kids all played together nicely. In public at least, everyone behaved with decorum. For example, when the Dulbers boarded first, they took the best cabins. Later, when Maria Feodorovna boarded, she was horrified to discover her family and servants had to make do with the leftovers. First Lieutenant Pridham offered to sort things out, and that was that.

Welch tries to make more of this hostility than I thought was necessary.

Yes, Maria Feodorovna wrote about how much she wanted the Dulbers off the ship in her diary, but in most of her public remarks to the ship’s officers, she was neutral, if not polite. Was there tension? Sure. But we’re talking about people who, by their very upbringing and training, kept their emotions inside and tried to behave with decorum and politeness. So there isn’t much of a conflict to present, aside from a few diary entries of Maria Feodorovna’s.

Similarly, Maria Feodorovna’s demands on the ship and its crew supposedly presented a secondary conflict within the book. Welch milks these incidents for all they’re worth.

For example, when the ship docked in Yalta, Maria made “a barrage of requests, then demands and finally threats.” She asked that the refugees gathered there all be taken away on English ships – if not, she was going to get off the boat and go with them. This, we’re told, was among the captain’s “worst fears.” (72) But there are no quotes from Maria Feodorovna or the captain in this section – this is all Welch’s dramatization of the event.

She tells us that, “in exasperation,” the captain gave in. Then she speculates that the captain must have hated giving in. Then we get even more speculation about what Maria Feodorovna might or might not have felt when writing in her private diary: “But perhaps some native survival instinct presented the Dowager from demonizing this man on whom so much of her destiny depended, even in the privacy of her diary. Her report of their exchange is brief and buoyant. She wrote: ‘I have offered an apology to Capt Johnson after which I hope we will be good friends. I also told him that I do not want to leave before everyone from Yalta and surroundings has been evacuated. He is excellent and has promised to do everything he can.’” (73)

So, to sum up, we have an overly dramatized incident where Welch speculated on emotions with little evidence. The only actual quote from a participant summed it up in three sentences, with much less drama than Welch attempted to spin out of it.

The whole book felt like this, to be honest – a stretch to create moments of meaningful drama that were really nothing more than tempests in a teacup. Always skimming the surface, never diving deeply into the history of any of the people mentioned.

To borrow and corrupt a saying from Gertrude Stein, there’s not enough “there” there.

A Few Interesting Tidbits

• Was a British spy in on Felix Yusupov’s plot to murder Rasputin? “According to one report, a mysterious Englishman had come to say goodbye to Youssoupov on the quay: an Oxford friend, the British spy Oswald Rayner. It is now believed that Rayner was at Youssoupov’s palace on the night of the killing.” Unfortunately, because of the lack of footnotes, we don’t know what report Welch is referring to. (41)
• Zinaida Yusupova on her husband’s mustache: “Prince Felix was heavily moustached, later refusing to shave even when Stalin rose to power championing the same look. His wife, Princess Zenaide, complained, in 1922, to one of the Tsar’s nephews: ‘It’s really awful to think Stalin looks exactly like my husband.’” (45)
• While in the Crimea from 1917-1919, Xenia’s kids continued their lessons. Vassily “remembered studying the misleadingly titled Reading Without Tears with Miss Coster. ‘That generally ended up with both of us crying – I from despair and Nana from exasperation.’” (57) This made me laugh.
• After a dinner at the Yusupov Eagle’s Nest home in the Crimea, Felix (Jr.) “had handed out cigarettes which exploded when lit. A lesser joker would have been dismayed by the guests’ reaction: terrified that they were under attack, they ran from the house. For Youssoupov, his guests’ terror was the icing on the cake.” (66)
• Tom Fothergill had to go on shore at one point (before sailing away from Russia) to restock the kitchen: “…sent ashore for food last night and the bill came this morning. 24 cauliflowers for £6!’” It’s always interesting to me what food cost in the past. The last time I tried to buy a cauliflower, it was $2.78 (about £1.99). (127)
• Xenia’s son, Prince Dmitri, emigrated to America and worked as a stockbroker. Later, he “smuggled scotch and gin, in the course of which he claimed to have met Al Capone.” (208)
• Grand Duchess Xenia established a lifelong friendship with First Lieutenant Francis Pridham. She even encouraged him to write his memoirs.

Caveats

• There are no endnotes or footnotes. I harp on this all the time, but that’s because I’m nosy and want to know exactly where tidbits of information came from. The good news is that because Welch often quotes from diaries and memoirs, you know who said what without a footnote. For the most part, she does a good job of making sure you know whose material she’s quoting. The bad news? When she doesn’t, you have no idea where a piece of information came from - including some of the unpublished sources she used, which you can’t exactly track down.
• One of the sources most frequently quoted is not listed in the bibliography. Maybe this is some academic or publishing protocol of which I’m unaware – if so, ignore this gripe. But the book makes liberal use of Maria Feodorovna’s diary, which isn’t in the bibliography. I wondered if it was one of the unpublished sources she consulted in an archive (several are listed). Nope. On a second pass through the book to write this review, I found it listed in a tiny note on the copyright page.
• There are a couple small mistakes I picked up as a casual reader. You may be able to find more – these are just the three that jumped out at me. (1) Despite having written a book about Anna Anderson, Welch gives an incorrect birth year for Grand Duchess Anastasia (1900 instead of 1901). (2) She mentions that, on her wedding day, Irina Alexandrovna wore a tiara that had once belonged to Marie Antoinette – but it was the veil, not the tiara. The tiara was a Cartier diamond and rock crystal creation, a wedding gift from Zinaida (her new mother-in-law). (3) She also writes that Nicholas II was 5’4” tall – for some reason, I remembered 5’6”, and Google tells me he was 5’7”. Not a deal-breaker, but enough to make me stop and pause.

Should You Read It?

If you can get it from a library, sure - it’s a short read.

If you’re Romanov-obsessed and want to read it because you read *everything* Romanov, go ahead. But there’s nothing new or groundbreaking here, so don’t get your hopes up.

The atmosphere Tatiana Metternich creates in the first part of the book, when describing Russia before and during the revolution, is palpable. When the revolution broke out, her family fled to the Crimea, where Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna lent them a villa. There, the children’s lessons continued.

I love this detail she gives us about her brother: “While the maid coiled Mamma’s long hair, we learnt our lessons in Russian and Latin writing on large squares of cardboard. Alexander liked the letter ‘Z’ for ‘Zaits’ (hare) so much, he would take it to bed with him.” (8) And in another unforgettable detail, she describes the changes she and her siblings noticed in the way the grown-ups talked: “Nobody dies any more: they are always killed.” (10)

Tatiana’s family left Russia at the same time as Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, aboard a British ship. As refugees, they drifted from place to place: Paris, Brittany, Baden-Baden, Kovno (Lithuania). There are plenty of famous names that crop up in their adventures: Countess Brassova, Countess Sofia Panina, General Wrangel, Empress Maria Feodorovna, Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna, and the Yusupovs.

Tatiana studied art in Munich, where she observed the Nazis rise to power. “Most of our entourage took a critical view, in spite of the improvement of conditions in Germany since the huge number of unemployed had melted overnight…the vulgarity and excesses of Nazi doctrines, as well as their amateurish and brutal elaborations on foreign policy were openly criticized. It could all only lead to disaster, many believed, unless the Western powers did not continue to give in” (56).

But both Tatiana and her sister wanted jobs that were more useful, so they studied shorthand and typing. In Berlin, they were fixtures on the aristocratic and diplomatic social scenes.

Once the war broke out, Tatiana advised a friend to take all her valuable out of the Berlin Bank – she’d seen firsthand what could happen if revolution followed war. Life became a series of food shortages, supply shortages, and bombing raids. She got a job in the Public Relations Department of the Foreign Office, where a friend had advised her to apply but keep her knowledge of Russian a secret. There, she met some of the conspirators who would later attempt to assassinate Hitler in 1944.

But wartime wasn’t all bleak – Tatiana met and married Paul Metternich, a soldier in a German cavalry regiment and the great-grandson of the famous Austrian chancellor. She moved her parents to a Metternich estate in Czechoslovakia, Königswart, where they attempted to sit out the war. Her dad’s advice to Paul when he married Tatiana? “One should leave room for each to develop in their own way, and neither try and impose one’s personality on the other.” (118)

At the end of the war, as the Russians closed in, Tatiana, her parents, and Paul fled Königswart for the Metternich estate in the west, Johannisberg. On foot, they traveled more than 250 miles (about 400 kilometers) to safety.

Interesting Tidbits

• In 1906, Tatiana’s mom, Lidia Viazemskaya, became one of the first female Russian students at Oxford University. Two of her teachers? Miss Moberly and Miss Jourdain. These were the two ladies who later claimed to have time-traveled while visiting Versailles and seen the ghost of Marie Antoinette.
• During the revolution, her mom was arrested in Petrograd and put in a crowded prison cell. There, she met Natalia Brassova, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich’s morganatic wife. Tatiana says that Natalia was kind to her mother, sharing soap and handkerchiefs, since Tatiana’s mom had been arrested with nothing but her purse. Three days later, “thanks to urgent intervention from outside,” the Cheka released her. (9)
• Tatiana’s dad had seen Rasputin once “at a railroad station and said that his ‘white’ eyes gave him a startling and repulsive appearance, as if he were looking through you…Papa did not approve of Felix [Yusupov] at all, for although everybody had been yearning for Rasputin’s death, Felix’s involvement in his murder was viewed with mixed feelings. However he both accepted and ignored Mamma’s childhood friendship with him.” (49)
• After the Revolution, while the family lived a peripatetic existence in Europe, Tatiana visited her mom at the spa in Kissingen. “…we were taken to visit Würzburg castle by Mamma’s goddaughter, whose father had been the German military attaché in Kovno in 1914. She was accompanied by her fiancé, a handsome young officer, Count Claus von Stauffenberg, who was to make the attempt on Hitler’s life in 1944.” (55)
• Tatiana’s mother-in-law, Isabel de Santa Cruz, had known Emperor Franz Josef: he “would often sit and chat with her at official balls. ‘He was such a dear,’ she told us.” (120) Isabel had been friends with Winston Churchill’s mother (Jennie Jerome) and Empress Eugénie. “The friendship was of ancient origin, for she had even inherited the Montijo girls’ English nurse, Miss Kidd, and remembered cutting up beautiful Worth dresses sent as cast-offs from France, combining a sleeve here with a flounce there to achieve something wearable for her.” (120)
• A soldier in a German cavalry regiment, Paul Metternich (Tatiana’s husband) ended up stationed on the eastern front. At the palace of Pavlovsk during the siege of Leningrad, he found a family photo album and brought it back to Tatiana’s parents to help identify who it might belong to. “They decided it must have belonged to one of Grand Duke Constantine’s murdered sons, Igor, who had been a close friend of theirs. He had died with the Empress’s sister and many other members of his family in 1918, thrown down a disused mine shaft in Alapaievsk in Siberia. They later managed to send it on to Paris to his brother, Prince Gabriel.” (179)

Should You Read It?

Absolutely - I highly recommend this book. If you have any interest in royal tidbits, aristocratic history, or European social history prior to and during World War II, this book has something for you.

When I looked up used copies to post this review, they were all prohibitively expensive - $65+. If you can’t get it from a local  library, ask about an inter-library loan. If that doesn’t work, keep an eye on the usual used book sources (Amazon marketplace, Alibris, Abe Books). I paid $25 for my copy, so another cheap copy may pop up.

Princess Hélène of France was a great-granddaughter of King Louis-Philippe, the last King of the French. He had long since lost his throne when she was born in 1871. As a result, she grew up in France and England with frequent trips to Spain and Portugal.

Why Spain? Because her mother was the daughter of Infanta Luisa Fernanda, the sister of Spain’s Queen Isabel II. Why Portugal? Because her older sister, Amelie, married the Crown Prince of Portugal and later became its queen.

Her family was friends with the Prince and Princess of Wales, which is how she met their eldest son, Prince Eddy. Unfortunately, that marriage didn’t pan out – her father refused to allow her to convert to marry the heir to the British throne.

A few years later, she married the Duke of Aosta – Emanuele Filiberto, heir to the Italian throne until King Victor Emmanuel married and had children of his own. Although their marriage started out happily enough, it descended from what seemed like love into friendship and – at times – mere tolerance. The couple had two sons, Amedeo and Aimone, and eventually lived mostly separate lives. The good news? There doesn’t seem to have been outright hostility between them. At one point, he wanted to resume their life together, but she politely said no. When one of them or the kids were sick, though, the other rushed to their side, so this wasn’t a hostile separation…just a mutual acknowledgement of separate interests.

For Hélène, that interest was travel. She loved getting the hell out of Dodge and exploring the far corners of the globe. Africa was her favorite destination, and she published three books of her travel writing as she explored its deserts, jungles, rivers, and lakes. She reveled in the experience of traveling incognito – no silly ceremonies, no bowing, no making small talk with bored (or boring) dignitaries. She wasn’t afraid to get dirty, and boy, did she love shooting wild game. For a modern reader, it’s downright painful to read about the number of animals shot for sport.

But when push came to shove – in the case of war, earthquakes, fire, and other tragedies – Hélène dropped what she was doing in order to be useful. Fundraising and nursing were all royal women were allowed to do, and Hélène did both of these very well.

There’s a question about a possible secret second marriage Hélène made after Emanuele Filiberto died…to a much younger man. Otto Campini was a young officer in her suite whom she fell in love with. He was by her side for the rest of her life, but always in the background. If they married, it’s possible it was in October of 1936, when she had a crisis of conscience or religion or both following a serious illness. Hanson keeps this relationship on the downlow, always qualifying the marriage with words like “probable.” He does note that when she died, Italian newspapers treated this second marriage as a confirmed fact in her obituaries. (315)

As she aged and slowed down in terms of travel, she spent more time in Italy and looked after her grandkids when needed. But it’s clear she missed the excitement, stimulation, and soul-searching that travel provided. She complained to her sister that age turned her into “a putrefaction” and that two world wars had taken her soul. Hell, I’m 44 and some days I feel like a putrefaction, so I totally get her disillusionment with the aging process.

After a 1946 plebiscite removed the royal family, she was the only member allowed to remain in Italy. By that point, she was an old woman – still remembered and respected, especially in Naples, where she had lived for many years. She died in 1951, having outlived her husband and (sadly) both of her sons.

Does Hélène Remind You of Anyone?

When you think of a 19^th century royal woman who shunned royal duties and preferred a life of travel and relative solitude, who springs to mind? Empress Elisabeth of Austria, right? I can’t help but make a few comparisons between Hélène and Sisi, and Hélène comes out on top every time.

Why? Because Hélène was a devoted mom to both her sons, no matter what was going on in her life. When they needed her, she was there, without question. She cared deeply for both of her sons and, later, their wives and children. She also showed more genuine feeling for the people of her adopted country, often rushing to the scene of a devastating disaster – earthquake or volcano eruption – to do what she could to help.

Like Sisi, she had a restless spirit that never felt at home in the strictures of court protocol. But unlike Sisi, she had the ability to put herself and her needs second and take care of others when the occasional called for it. And we’re not talking about only massive conflicts like wars – Hélène would reschedule trips when her husband or kids were sick, for example.

Of course, she wasn’t married to an emperor and her sons weren’t heirs to a throne; as a result, she had more freedom than Sisi ever did. Maybe that makes this comparison less than valid. The Spanish etiquette Sisi was subjected to at the Austrian court was nowhere near as strict as anything Hélène experienced. Still, I get the sense that Hélène was better adjusted and more grounded, which made her capable of more self-awareness than Sisi had.

That’s not to say Hélène didn’t have her negative qualities – although this book downplays those, which makes a good segue into the caveats section.

Caveats

None, really. Hanson’s research is thorough and the writing is solid, if perhaps a little staid. The book has a handful of typos and a few missing words, but geez louise, it’s a super-dense 446 pages. I’ll cut the team some slack.

Expectations

The only caveat I offer is in terms of expectations. Hanson dedicates the book to Hélène’s three grandchildren, and he mentions the support they gave him in the book’s acknowledgements. As an avid reader of royal biographies, I know what this means: familial support means access to memories and personal stories you won’t find anywhere else. Yay! But it may also mean the author has to downplay any unflattering or undesirable tidbits. That’s not a certainty…but as a reader, that’s always going to be on my mind.

Don’t expect any salacious gossip in this book. That might never have been Hanson’s goal. Or it might be because he didn’t want to include stuff like that when working with the support of Hélène’s own family. Either way, that’s fine – it’s his book. Just don’t expect much information (or even speculation) on questions that might have gossipy overtones: why was Hélène’s first child only born three years into the marriage? Did Aosta’s womanizing affect Hélène? It’s hinted at here, but it’s not really a part of the story.

Similarly, I wonder if Hélène’s ambition might have been downplayed. Aside from noting that she called her son a little king, we don’t get much if anything about her supposed hunger for the throne. I’ve seen her described elsewhere as ambitious and scheming, but here, she comes off as nothing like that. A throne would have made her frequent incognito trips difficult if not impossible, so I’m willing to believe she was mischaracterized. What’s unclear is, if that’s an inaccurate portrayal, how did it emerge? Did Hélène know that’s how she was perceived? Did she care? The subject of greed and ambition isn’t really given much play here with regard to Hélène personally. And I can’t help but wonder…is that intentional? Or is there really so little to go on in the primary sources?

Her husband…well, that’s another matter. We do get information about his role in some of the post-WWI chaos regarding Italian annexation of cities like Fiume. But by that point, he and Hélène were living separate lives so it’s doubtful she shared much of his political thinking or strategy at this point. We’re also well beyond the point in time when he was the heir to the throne.

Tidbits

• Hélène was a hair over six feet tall – Hanson gives her height as 1.85 m. The people of Naples gave her the affectionate nickname of “the royal giraffe.” I love that.
• Her father, the Comte de Paris, died of stomach cancer. To try and save him, the doctors debated whether to try removing his stomach and transplanting a lamb’s stomach. Apparently, this had been done successfully once before in France. I had no freakin’ idea. (86)
• The Sardinian kings (the Savoy family) had an interesting ancestor: Eleanor Oglethorpe, the sister of the dude who founded the colony of Georgia. (101)
• She had the cutest nicknames for her kids: Amedeo was “Bouby” and Aimone was “Bob.”
• Hélène’s sister, Louise, married Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Parma in England in 1907. The former Crown Princess Stephanie of Austria-Hungary was there, in one of her rare appearances after marrying her second husband, Count Elmer Lonyay. (140)
• In May of 1914, Hélène and her traveling companion, Susan Hicks Beach, crossed America on their way back to Europe. Susan hated all the bureaucracy and form-filling they had to do: “We don’t think we like America, there are more fusses & more rules & regulations as to what one must or must not do than anywhere else, the emigration officers at the ports are endless, they are always wanting to know our full names ages addresses destinations occupations etc. etc.” (197) And one more zinger: “…it is certainly the least free country in the world.” (198)
• In April of 1918, the future Edward VIII visited Hélène for lunch at her villa. He called her a “divine woman in her own way & very kind though she is about 50 now, rather old perhaps?!!!” He said that her husband treated her badly and there were “a heap of stories” about it. (221)
• When thinking about the possibility of writing another travel memoir after World War I, Hélène wrote, “How could I write? The War killed my soul; I am nothing more than a shadow, and shadows don’t know how to write, shadows are inert, shadows don’t know how to feel.” (235)
• At the end of World War I, the city of Trieste was awarded to Italy – and Hélène’s son, Amedeo, lived there with his wife and daughter for awhile. Their second daughter was born in Archduke Maximilian’s castle, Miramar, in 1933.
• In 1943, after the Allied invasion of Italy, a German patrol rounded up Hélène, Campini, and her servants in her palace of Capodimonte. An officer threatened to shoot them all, but Hélène told him she was the only one responsible for the household, and if he had to shoot anyone, it should be her and her alone. The officer let everyone go. (354)

Should You Read It?

Absolutely. If you have any interest in the Italian royal family of the 20^th century, this will give you some insight. Alternatively, if you’re interested in the Comte de Paris’s other daughters (Amelie, Isabelle, Louise), this will give you a fair amount of detail on their lives, too.

This book is a good introduction to a few ladies you probably know very little (or nothing) about. That’s both its purpose and its charm. The author herself says that it’s meant to whet your appetite and encourage you to dig further into the life of whichever woman sparks your interest.

Here’s who we’re talking about:

• Caroline Louise (born a princess of Hesse-Darmstadt). Her fiancé, Margrave Karl Friedrich of Baden-Durlach, dragged his feet when it came to marrying her. Then when he married her, he dragged his feet in acting like he was married. But once he did, he fell for her – and her intelligence. She was his sounding board for the rest of her life. They both believed in living within their means, and Caroline Louise invited men of letters, the arts, and science to Karlsruhe. She corresponded with Voltaire. As a result, the city’s prestige increased during their reign. Also under their reign, Karl Friedrich inherited the Margravate of Baden-Baden to add to his Baden-Durlach. She died on a visit to Paris at age 59 in 1783.
  
  
• Amalie Friederike (born a princess of Hesse-Darmstadt). When her mom died, she made Amalie promise to marry Karl Ludwig, the heir to Baden and the son of Caroline Louise. She obeyed and they married in 1774. She had a tense relationship with her mother-in-law, whom she felt nitpicked her and harassed her. She bided her time, waiting for the day when she’d be Margravine. But that day didn’t come. Her husband died before his father, and she focused on building Baden’s relationships through the marriages of her six daughters.
  
  
• Louise Caroline von Hochberg (born Geyer von Geyersburg). At the age of 19, lady-in-waiting Louise was recruited by Amalie to become a morganatic wife and companion for her aging father-in-law (the widower of Caroline Louise, above). Louise accepted. But over time, as she and Karl Friedrich had kids, she grew ambitious for them. He got her a title (countess), but hesitated when it came to adding their kids to the line of succession. But when Karl Friedrich’s only son died, leaving one grandson as the only legitimate male heir, he changed his tune. She begged Napoleon to enforce the right of her sons to succeed, but he put her off. Finally, in 1806, Karl Friedrich made it official: her sons would succeed if there were no more legitimate male heirs. When Karl Friedrich died in 1811, his grandson Karl asked her to leave Karlsruhe. She came back, and died there in 1820 – never knowing that yes, her son would later inherit the throne.
  
  
• Stephanie de Beauharnais (yes, a relative of Josephine’s first husband). Born in Versailles in 1789, Stephanie was the daughter of Claude de Beauharnais, a cousin of Empress Josephine’s first husband. She went to Madame Campan’s Paris school with Josephine’s daughter, Hortense. Napoleon later used her as a bargaining chip to secure Baden’s loyalty, marrying her off to the heir to the throne, Hereditary Prince Karl. The marriage was a disaster at first. No one in Baden wanted an upstart relative of Bonaparte’s, and Stephanie – now an imperial highness after being adopted by Napoleon – thought Karl needed to work harder to win her affection. Eventually, after Napoleon’s fall, Stephanie and Karl found more common ground and their relationship deepened. Two of their daughters survived, but both of their sons died in infancy, leaving Karl’s brother as the last legitimate heir to the throne.
  
  
• Sophie (born a princess of Sweden). Sophie’s mother was one of Amalie’s daughters. When it became obvious that the legitimate line of Baden’s heirs would die out and Hochberg’s sons would inherit, someone – Tsarina Elizaveta, Sophie’s aunt – had the genius idea to marry Sophie to Leopold von Baden, Louise von Hochberg’s son. At first, the marriage was blissfully happy. But the Caspar Hauser scandal rocked Baden, changing them forever. The rumor was that one of Stephanie de Beauharnais’s children hadn’t died young after all – he’d been swapped for a dead or dying baby, spirited away to a prison from which he escaped as a young man, with no clue who he really was. When Hauser was murdered in 1833, rumor also had it that Sophie had arranged it, desperate for her husband to keep his throne and her children to inherit it. That suspicion destroyed Leopold and Sophie’s marriage.
  
  
• Louise (born a princess of Prussia). The only daughter of Kaiser Wilhelm I, Louise was proud to be Prussian – and this didn’t always go over well in her adopted country of Baden. She married Sophie’s son, Friedrich, and their marriage was a happy one. Louise is a dominant figure in Baden’s history. She was extremely active as an unofficial advisor to Friedrich, as well as in charity work. When she read what Henri Dunant had written about the horrors of the Austro-Italian War of 1859, she took it upon herself to create a group of nurses that would function like a standing army – trained and ready to deploy *before* a war was declared. When the Geneva Convention was signed in 1864, Baden was the first state to sign and join. Two years later, she helped form the first Central Committee of the Red Cross in Baden. Her women’s organization formed the backbone of the Baden Red Cross.
  
  
• Hilda (born a princess of Nassau). Hilda married Louise’s son, Friedrich. But because both Hilda and Friedrich were shy, they were happy to let their parents stay in the spotlight. But when Friedrich became Grand Duke in 1907, Louise remained the first lady of the land. Was it because Hilda was too timid to take center stage? Was it because Louise was too used to the spotlight to give it up? It was some of both. Gentle Hilda did what she could behind the scenes to keep Louise happy and boost Friedrich’s confidence. She and Friedrich had no children, which was a major source of heartbreak for her (and disapproval from her mother-in-law).

Interesting Tidbits

• In 1772, Amalie and her two sisters (Wilhelmine and Louise) went to Russia. Catherine the Great wanted to choose a bride for her son, Paul. Amalie didn’t get the golden ticket. Paul chose her sister, Wilhelmine.
  
  
• Amalie Friederike’s daughter, Louise, married Tsar Alexander I of Russia. It was not a happy marriage, and she avoided discussing politics with him so she was never quite the ambassador and advocate for Baden that her mom had hoped she would be.
  
  
• It’s widely believed that Sophie’s youngest child, Cecilie, wasn’t Leopold’s daughter, but the illegitimate daughter of Moritz von Haber, Sophie’s rumored lover. Depending on when Leopold and Sophie stopped sleeping together, It’s also possible that Sophie’s next youngest, Marie, also wasn’t Leopold’s daughter.
  
  
• On her first visit to Germany in 1845, Queen Victoria befriended Sophie and Leopold’s daughter, Alexandrine, who had married Duke Ernst II of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, making her Victoria’s sister-in-law.
  
  
• After the revolution of 1848, which left Leopold deeply shaken, he took to drinking frequently, earning the nickname “Champagne Leopold.”
  
  
• Always mindful of her husband’s reputation (and lineage), Louise did her best to sweep the Caspar Hauser scandal under the rug. She reportedly searched the Baden archives and moved or hid information she didn’t want tarnishing the royal house’s reputation.
  
  
• Hilda was an outdoor girl – she loved to ride, hike, and swim. Swimming was her favorite sport! I don’t know about you, but I never picture Grand Duchesses swimming.

Caveats

• It’s not footnoted. The author clearly acknowledges this isn’t meant to be a scholarly work, and you can’t fault her for delivering a very readable introduction to these women. Still, if you’re interested in any quotes or tidbits, you have to do the legwork to go find them yourself.
  
  
• Because each chapter is strictly chronological, you meet the next Grand duchess of Baden during her predecessor’s chapter. Why is this a problem? Because each chapter tries to look sympathetically at the woman being portrayed (yes, even Louise Caroline von Hochberg). That means that if a woman didn’t like or understand her successor, your introduction to her is from a woman who’s not seeing her good points. In the next chapter, the author glosses over the narrative of the next woman until we get to the point where her predecessor died. There would be too much overlap otherwise and I totally get that, but it does a disservice to the next subject. Her argument for doing this is that it’s exciting to see the same events viewed through different lenses. YMMV.
  
  
• Coverage of each woman varies in length. Because this book is based on already published sources, it’s not breaking new ground. If there’s not much out there on one of these women (Sophie and Hilda), their coverage here is dramatically shorter than the coverage of, say, Louise of Prussia. It’s an inevitable consequence of this being a popular history, which is fine. Just know that going in.
  
  
• The style might take some getting used to. True, I read this via AI translation. But there was still a definite literary style, with lots of sentence fragments and internal thoughts of the characters—er, historical figures. Here’s an example: “After all, Karl was only the hereditary prince of an insignificant German country - but Stephanie was an ‘imperial highness,’ the adopted daughter of the most powerful man in Europe. She was an important figure now, even higher in rank than Napoleon’s sisters. Karl had better consider it an honor that she would marry him. He should seek her out, should woo her, prove his adoration to her. But there he was, smiling awkwardly and acting as if he were deaf and dumb. Stephanie wrinkled her pretty nose.”

Should You Read It?

If you read German, yes. It’s entertaining, and I like the way it takes you through the entire history of early modern Baden. You’re not going to get a female-centric survey of Baden anywhere else that I know of.

If you don’t read German – and aren’t already researching one of these women – this is probably more effort than any normal human being should invest.