British aristocrats have been common staples in TV shows, films, and even romance novels; but this was the first time I have seen them in a historical and academic light. A colleague of mine recommended me this book and I must say that David Cannadine did not disappoint. He meticulously takes readers to the aristocracy at its zenith; to its responses to the varoius political, economic, and social changes; and finally demise as a force to be reckoned with.

How is it that the owners of Britain's stately homes, who once lived magnificently, now are reduced to admitting paying visitors to keep their homes? While this question is never asked in David Cannadine's book, it is answered nonetheless.

Cannadine manages rather adroitly to discuss the long downward spiral of the British aristocracy amidst the backdrop of the history of Great Britain in the 19th and 20th century. There was a time in which these great magnates practically owned or controlled most of the wealth of the nation. What went wrong?

A better question might be, what went right. Although they managed to control politics, the military, the church and the civil service, the position of these guardians of Britannia was undermined by two things, the industrial revolution (which put up a new manufacturing class in opposition to the traditional nobles) and the rise of popular democracy. The first three reform bills drastically weakened the traditional hold of the aristocracy on the political process. During the 19th century it was a rare government that did not include several if not many representatives of the titled orders. By late the 20th century, the presence of one of these would seem somewhat quaint, a reminder of by gone days.

But it was not just the loss of political power that undermined the aristocracy, the immediate pre WWI years were a disaster of the first magnitude with Lloyd George and his "people's budget."
One wonders what would have happened to someone of Lloyd George's ilk in the 17th century. Doubless he would have shared the same fate as Bishop Laud.

WWI, WWII, and the rise of the Labor Party really were the final nails in the coffin of the British Aristocracy and the once lords of the realm are now reduced to lending their names to directorships (some of doubtful legitimacy), opening their homes to tourists, and even worse turning their backs on the whole of what it meant to be noble as the family fortunes and the roof of the family manse continue to erode away.

Cannadine handles all of this rather well bolstering each of his claims brilliantly. If one wants to know how the British Aristocracy went from being the rulers of the realm to one of its tourist attractions they should read this book.

In the 1990 "Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy," David Cannadine masterfully shows how the traditional landed classes of England lost much of their political power and economic pre-eminence as late-19th century democracy and capitalism swept over Britain. This well-documented volume convincingly shows aristocratic decline in almost every facet of British society and also explains how the landed classes adjusted to their lessened position in society. Cannadine uses both statistics and anecdotes to support his arguments, and voluminous footnotes, appendices, and an index follow. This book will be mostly appreciated by those with a background in British history, as Cannadine makes many references to 19th/20th century British culture, politics, people, and news events without explaining them. Furthermore, this book is rife with typographical errors, albeit harmless. For example, a lady by the name of "Violet" in the first chapter is referred to as "Violent."

Minor nit-picking notwithstanding, this volume is well-researched, thorough, and quite entertaining. It should become a classic work on British social history alongside great books such as "The Long Weekend" and the "Strange Death of Liberal England."

If, like me, you are interested in British history but not a hard core scholar, this one may be a bit on the dull side. However, I did manage to make my way through it without having to force myself to pick it up. It is well worth the effort.

Thirty years of intense historical debate and disagreement have clouded the underlying story of seventeenth-century Britain; with this addition to the Penguin History of Britain series, Mark Kishlansky mediates the academic controversy in an introductory narrative of the Stuart era. From the ascension of James I to the death of Queen Anne, he chronicles the political events which elevated Britain from isolation to international predominance. In so doing, he vividly develops the characters who helped to spark this transformation. He hopes that this universally accessible narration will kindle his audience's interest in the period.

In pursuit of this goal, Kishlansky avoids examining the contradictory interpretations which he believes necessitate this work. His prefatory remarks fully acknowledge the limited nature of his discussion. Apologizing to his colleagues, he explains that any effort to conflate the conflicting opinions into one coherent narrative would prove futile. Therefore, he claims to have used his discretion in writing a flowing account.

Still, an author's discretion is seldom neutral. Correlating with Kishlansky's past contributions to British historiography, this book contains definite revisionist undertones. Focusing on the impact of individuals, he emphasizes the contingency of each event he describes. Accident and circumstance drive his story. This perspective does not accommodate the vital component of progressive interpretations: inevitability. Furthermore, Kishlansky's story is essentially a political narrative. He frequently dismisses the social and economic factors which progressives view as so influential in governmental development.

The work itself is a combination of three stylistic techniques. To orient the audience for the narrative, the prologue and first two chapters analyze the social and political institutions of seventeenth-century Britain. The narrative itself dominates each of the succeeding eleven chapters, introduced in each by a dramatic vignette. By describing one of the most exciting or extraordinary events yet to come, these vignettes entice the reader to continue. Separating them from the main narrative are brief contextual introductions, similar to those of the first two chapters. Kishlansky also uses this analytical style in his disappointingly short four-page epilogue.

Additionally, the title of this book is quite misleading. This is neither a history of the monarchy's transformation nor a history of Britain. In reality, Kishlansky recounts the transformation of the entire British governmental system. Also, while he does incorporate the roles of Scotland and Ireland into his story, he does so only from an English point of view. Added to this are only minor references to Britain's overseas colonies. Thus, a more appropriate title would be: A Government Transformed: England 1603-1714.

Kishlansky's lack of citation is also troublesome. Though his extensive bibliography is impressive, it is not inclusive. He references general works on broad topics, yet his audience learns of specific events and people. If his readers become interested in researching any of the specific topics which he describes, his bibliography will prove only slightly more helpful than a library's card catalogue. Overall, Kishlansky accomplishes what he set out to do; he creates an interesting and coherent story which provides a solid base for further study. For people with a limited knowledge of the events that transpired during the seventeenth century, this is a clear introduction. This book is by no means comprehensive, but that was never the goal of the author. Its accessibility comes from its simplicity. After reading it, students are ready for and hopefully interested in more critical research in the field.

Mr. Kishlansky provides a concise narrative of the events that characterized seventeenth century English history and that resulted in the modern British parliament and constitutional monarchy. His attention to detail shows his thorough knowledge of the history of Great Britain and most importantly, shows how the rise of the modern parliamentary system & constitutional monarchy at century's end provided mechanisms to many of the legal questions which gave rise to the various revolutions and civil wars that characterized the century's previous history. An excellent book for anyone interested in British history or who wishes to know where the founding fathers of the American revolution obtained so many of the ideas that characterize the American constitution and its emphasis on the paramountcy of the rule of law.

Professor Cannadine has already produced several loving portraits of the British aristocracy and a biography of one of its earlier chroniclers, G. M. Trevelyan. Now he adds a celebratory image of the British Empire, puffing it as the greatest show on earth.

But there is nothing original in this book. It is based entirely on secondary sources and anecdotes; for instance, he recycles the ancient jokes about the CMGs, KCMGs and GCMGs of the hugely tedious honours system.

This is an imperial-minded study of the Imperial mentalite. He displays (and himself clearly shares) the British ruling class's hierarchical and rural fantasy world, which they clung to in fear of the real world of industry, cities and democracy. He tells us of the British-imposed Viceroy of India, who in the 1930s had no fewer than 6000 servants! Like all too many historians, he indulges in abject hero-worship of Churchill the bugler of Empire.

In an extraordinary passage he writes, "For as the British contemplated the unprecedented numbers massed together in their new industrial cities, they tended to compare these great towns at home with the 'dark continents' overseas, and thus equate the workers in factories with coloured peoples abroad." So 'the British' observed the workers in Britain's factories, who in the eyes of Cannadine, and of the ruling class, were obviously not British at all!

In a book about Empire and class, Cannadine manages to write the phrase 'ruling class' just once, and avoids the term working class altogether. As active subjects, he much prefers terms like 'the British' and 'the official mind'. The word 'domination', when he uses it - rarely - is always in inverted commas.

Cannadine's October 1998 article in the Financial Times showed what a Blimp he is. He claimed that England - he meant Britain - was not 'a particularly unequal society', and seriously suggested that "the best way to make our nation a classless society" would be "that we all stop talking about class." This book reveals the same crass idealism; not surprisingly, the Thatcherite bigot Niall Ferguson praises it fulsomely!

Let's keep it short. The title is more than a cute pun. Old Boney once said, no doubt in fine French, that a man would do things for a piece of yellow ribbon that he would not do for all the gold in the world. This scholarly, but not too much so, study is about British uses not of glory but pomp: the deliberate distribution of honors neatly packaged by class; indeed, neatly packaged by the rank of various colonial states somewhat in the pattern of elborate dinner seatings of the middle ages. "I say is Fijii above or below the salt?" In an age of "postcolonial/subaltern/otherness" studies this is a readable guide to events and behaviors of our British cousins that those of us on this side of the pond sometimes find rather mysterious. It is a good addition to the personal library of anyone doing serious literary/social analysis.

This book presents a clear and concise perspective of the British empire. Not only does the author give a good general overview of this huge topic, but his views are clear and to the point. The empire meant different things to different people. What the author has tried to show is that the British did not base their empire on race, but class. An important distinction which balances many of the anti-empire racial perspectives that politically correct historians have been so fond of pointing out recently. Cannadine agrees that there was a racial element for sure, but that class hierarchy and ceremony were the predomenent factors involved. Seen in this way we get a much different idea of what the Empire was to different people. It is less a Black and White view which may not be popular to those who like to see things in more simplistic terms. Still, a nice read, with clear and concise writing. It will deffinitely stimulate your thoughts on the topic.

Historians, if they are unusually lucky and popular, sometimes publish collections of essays between major monographs. David Cannadine is lucky enough to do this is two distinct genres. The first are the collection of reviews and journalism "The Pleasures of the Past," and "History in Our Time." The second are the collections of more scholarly essays "Aspects of Aristocracy," and this book. Unfortunately for the reader, this voume is the most disappointing of the four books.

Notwithstanding the title and the prominent photograph of Churchill on the cover page, this book is not really about Churchill, who is the subject of only three of the book's twelve essays. Already this book does not have the coherence that united "Aspects of Aristocracy," with its intimation of aristorcratic power and decline. What do we have? The book consists of three quartets of essays. The first one supposedly deals with Churchill, but the first essay is really a history of Parliament, and the second discusses Churchill along with Margaret Thatcher and Joseph Chamberlain. The third essay is more informative, as it deals with Churchill's ambiguous relationship with the monarchy, and its actual unimiginative rulers. The fourth essay is even better, as it discusses both the strengths of Churchill's remarkable oratory, but also its weaknesses, such as its lack of nuance or pitch, so that Hitler and Gandhi appear to be equally dangerous to Britain. The next quartet is less interesting. The essays on the decline and fall of the Chamberlain dynasty in Birmingham and the success of Stanley Baldwin's emollient pseudo-rural imagery tell nothing particularly new. An essay on Josiah Wedgewood tells how he wanted to produced a history of parliament, ignored all the historians, and got a work of limited historical value or accuracy. The chapter on correspondence between two historians, one English, one American, which led to a letter of somewhat limited importance being sent to FDR, seems like filler.

The last quartet is most useful. True, the chapter on the National Trust is somewhat disappointing. Cannadine describes it as it moves from a group with liberal and radical origins to a pilar of the establishment whose main purpose is to allow indebted aristocrats to keep their country houses by opening them to the public. I cannot help but point out that the late Raphael Samuel's "Theatres of Memory," was much more stimulating about this topic. The other three chapters are much better. Cannadine discusses the success of Gilbert and Sullivan in the context of its rather conservative, chauvinistic and increasingly unsatirical style, while benefiting from the invention of traditions in the last quarter of the 19th century. Cannadine also produces a useful chapter on the decline of Noel Coward, whining endlessly about the decline of the empire and the end of the welfare as his talent dribbled away on sentimental pieces. (It is alarming that Cannadine quotes so much, and that none of it is funny.) Finally there is Cannadine's fine essay on Ian Fleiming and James Bond, which is better than Alexander Cockburn's essay in "Corruptions of Empire" and much better than recent commentaries by Christopher Hitchens and Anthony Lane, and really shows how childish the whole James Bond phenonemon is. Cannadine is excellent on the double side of Fleming/Bond: on the one side "apolitically" conservative, xenophobic, chivalric and so patriotic as to laud British cooking above all others. On the other side both Fleming and his creation are promiscuous, they drink and they gamble and they show an alarming infatuation with consumer goods.

Ultimately though, this is a disappointing volume. Many of his reviews and articles in the past were unusually vigorous and vital in pointing out the flaws and mediocrity of the British royal family. So it is most disturbing to find on the chapter of parliament that Cannadine thinks it would be too radical for the Prime Minister to give "the speech from the throne," let alone call for an actual republic. Likewise, the chapter on Stanley Baldwin does not really dissect the Uriah Heep like quality of the way Baldwin promoted his reputation for moral conduct. The fact that Baldwin and Chamberlain were the worst British prime ministers of the 20th century, that they nearly led Britain to defeat in the one war that it could not afford to lose, does not really get sufficient emphasis, or disgust, from Cannadine. Finally on the chapter on Joseph Chamberlain, Churchill and Thatcher and the prospect of British decline, Cannadine produces a workmanlike effort on their failed attempts. But in closing when he states that the relative decline was not so bad, he shows a weakness of many British historians. Whether what happened was inevitable or not is a complex questions. But even if nothing could have been changed, much of the recent work on Germany, Russia, Israel, Spain or the United States is based on the belief that things SHOULD have been better. There is no such feeling in most Briitsh historiography, and one suspects that here realism is confused with complacency and quietism. It is disturbing indeed, that Cannadine cannot discern the difference.

This book claims to be about the decline of the aristocracy, but is really a mean-spirited look at the misfortunes of several aristocratic dynasties and persons. The author gleefully rips apart Winston Churchill, Lord Curzon, Vita Sackville-West and others, while adding no new insight into their characters. Lord Curzon was obsessed with ceremony? Now there's a startling relevation.

There is very little substance to this book and no conclusions are reached, or even suggested.

Paints a vivid and broad picture of the British aristocracy which has declined precipitously in fortune, political power and status since about 1870. Mr. Cannandine's chooses not to explain the causes of the decline, however, with any percision. The various political reform acts, the rise of a rootless proletariate, the democratization of education, the agricultural decline starting about 1870, the decimation of young aristocrats in the trenches of World War One, the loss of confidence in the right to rule-these are either only briefly mentioned by Mr. Cannandine or not mentioned by Mr. Cannandine. He chose not to over-analyze. My chief criticism of the book is that in conclusion, Mr. Cannandine seems overjoyed with the declining relevance of his subject. That is a pity. The British aristocracy has done well by Britain. It is sad that Mr. Cannandine has a soulmate in Tony Blair, who is set to destroy the House of Lords this year.