On Royalty: A Very Polite Inquiry Into Some Strangely Related Families

A thoroughly enjoyable and thought-provoking book. A rebublican by conviction when he started the book, Paxman considers all aspects of the British royal family, past and present: their ancestry and history; their relationship with their people, and with God; their day-to-day life in the past and these days; their obligations, rights and responsibilities. It's a closely and thoroughly researched book, but witty too, and written with a light touch. At the end he concludes that, with all its imperfections, the stability and well being of our country is better assured by the fact that we have a hereditary monarch, rather than an elected president. I found it easy to agree with his arguments.

On the positive side, an interesting look at the dynamics of how royalty has changed in the last 100 years, with a logical progression of topics. In spite of brief detours to Denmark, Spain and Albania, it really is a look at the British monarchy, and to that extent, I think the book is a bit oversold. There's also a level of snark at points in the book that I found off-putting, and you do get the impression that Paxman doesn't particularly like his subject.

This is a book about the psychology of monarchy, examined from the perspective of both the monarch and their subjects. Its general theses is that the monarchy, like religion, is an irrational institution but that it answers to deep-rooted human impulses. These are what make it difficult for Republicans to get their voices heard. The thesis probably holds most strongly in England and Paxman fails to examine its opposite - the thriving of republics across the globe without the projected fantasy of Monarchy. There are, however, many entertaining insights into the quirks of the monarchical mind to be found, especially in areas where Paxman was granted access to the Royal household. It is also striking that the strongest Republican argument show more (from a Guardian piece) is one that accepts the need for the fantasy but argues that the fantasy itself is too outmoded and simplistic. show less

Paxman might have called this "On British Royalty," since he barely glances on the monarchs of other countries, and has absolutely nothing on any royalty not from Europe. He provides a stimulating and enlightening discussion on the solemn absurdity that is the British Royal Family, touching on historical figures as well. I was impressed.

Insightful book on the contemporary role of Monarchies in western democracies and hints at the bumpy time Charles may have

Christopher Hitchens gave it a good review in the New York Times, but I just couldn't get into it. Paxman's writing is just too pedantic for me, and did not make this subject -- the always fascinating one of royal families -- enticing. I did have fun, though, looking through the index and reading snippets. Who could resist reading more about "Hawaii: dynastic incest, 45" or "Zog, King of the Albanians, 30-2, 35, 29-40, 43"?