Kitty Kelley would make a great gossip columnist, but as a biographer or historian she is absolutely awful.

She seems unaware that when King Georg IV and his wife Elizabeth visited North America World War II had not yet started. She also seems confused about when Churchill became Prime Minister. If she fails with these basic facts that can be found in any history book, how reliable can the rest of her information be?

Having read this book I feel that it has been unfairly maligned. It is neither a trashing of the individuals in the house of Windsor nor is it a tabloid-esque scandal sheet. Ms. Kelly paints a complex psychological portrait of the members of the royal family in a way that does not excuse their well documented ill-behavior but rather allows the reader to have insight into their personal motivations. In a way the royal family of Britain are painted as very real and human characters with flaws and many emotional injuries. I wonder if the negative reaction to this book is due to the timing of its release and the fact that the narrative humanizes characters that Britain, for the sake of its history and system of governance, needs to be more that human. And for the rest of the world to serve as a mirror for our fantasies. For me this book elicited pathos for this family--the queen's coldness and inhumanity caused by the early death of her father and the trauma of the second world war with all of the incipient pressures that would befall her. (what a potentially terrifying childhood knowing that your destiny may require you to "save the nation" though the strength of your character). As for Charles (for whom I personally had a storng antipathy towards prior to reading this book) the childhood he had left him quite incapable of being a loving sympathetic man despite the fact that he apparently has a tremendous need to be so. Diana was bound to be crushed by the institution of royalty and the monarchy. Her "loony' behavior makes perfect sense when you consider that she as a 19 year old girl had just steeped though the looking glass and into a world with no allies. Also, don't kid yourself, while there some epistemological problems and some quotes must clearly be fabricated, a technique of historians going back to Herodotous, this is an exceedingly well crafted book.

"The Royals" is a book every monarchist and republican should read. If the monarchy is to survive, this is the book that clearly states what its faults are and how the monarchy can become more human. Republicans will find plenty of arguments for their point of view as well. The book's most important aspect, I think, is that it makes the Windsors appear remarkably human. Here is King Edward VIII, whose love cost him the throne; the unsure George VI; the cold and aloof Elizabeth II; the brave and tragic Princess Diana; and many other people. The reason why Kitty Kelley is so reviled in some circles is because she paints people as they are, not the way the official version makes it out to be. I think that the book's biggest argument is that the old ceremonies and etiquette need to be updated before they bring down the monarchy. The book is very detailed, giving a good look at the humans behind the glamour.

This book is the tabloid version of an Elizabeth Taylor biography, reading like stiched-together daily exposes in such a newspaper. It displays in endless detail the sexual orientation of virtually everyone she ever spent time with, any arguments she ever had where someone else was present, and any unladylike things she may have said or done. Her movie work is discussed in terms of how it related to her marital relationships and financial problems. Occasionally, the book also criticizes her for having a healthy sexual appetite.

Normally, biographers either like the person they write about or want to create a more accurate account of the person. Mr. Amburn did not seem to fall into either of these categories. His objective seems to be to portray some of the other people in Ms. Taylor's life more sympathetically.

The book's main thesis is that Ms. Taylor has had loving relationships in her adult life with people who are gay or bisexual and unloving ones with everyone else. This connection is also made to Ms. Taylor's relationship with her father, despite the fact that she did not have a good relationship with him. But the book doesn't get beyond that into much of the motivation. Many men were attracted to Ms. Taylor like moths to the flame, and this attraction did nothing to bring out their better qualities. She seems to have lived in a world where her physical attractiveness made her a target for fans, men, and exploiters of all sorts. Little is made of the potential to see her as victim of peoples' perceptions of someone who is physically attractive. She also doesn't seem to get enough credit for generally being an open-minded person, which may explain her lack of sexual-orientation prejudice.

According to press reports and this book, Ms. Taylor has had more than her share of illness, injury, and physical and emotional pain. Yet she has led a generally productive artistic life, and has played an increasingly important role in bringing sympathy and support to the cause of overcoming AIDS. It would have been natural to have focused on these positive reflections of her underlying character, and the difficulties involved in overcoming ceaseless, searing pain addiction. No one is going to be perfect under such circumstances. Yet the book wallows in her use of drugs and drinking to soften the pain, in endless tales that add little to the biography.

Naturally, Ms. Taylor is famous in part for her marital difficulties. Those should have been in the book, but they became too much of the book to be rewarding to the reader.

As someone who was a working actress for most of her life, another aspect of the book you might expect would be extended dicussions of her work. You will find relatively little of that. It is as though the author thinks that her work is of virtually no importance. I certainly was moved by her performances in National Velvet, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Giant, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? I liked her performances in many other movies. I would have liked to have read much more about her work in these roles where she was more successful.

The best part of this book is the beautiful color photograph of Ms. Taylor on the cover.

If you are wondering why I did not give the book a one star review, it is because the photographs are good and the writing style is perfectly adequate. The three star downgrade is for misfocus, exploitation, and a hidden agenda.

After you finish looking at Ms. Taylor's cover photograph, consider what you would like to know more about public figures. Then when you are thinking about reading a biography about that person, check to see if the biography focuses on the areas you care about before reading them. That will save you a lot of time.

Also, ask yourself how we should consider someone's life. To what extent should we consider good deeds? Bad deeds? Repentance? Motives? Physical appearance? Obstacles to progress? Ms. Taylor's life raises these issues rather nicely.

By the way, if you find a biography of Ms. Taylor that you like, please do write to me. I'd like to read it.

As another reviewer said, I have read most ot the biographies written about Elizabeth Taylor, and I am usually disappointed! They seem to never capture the woman; the authors tend to rehash old news clippings, or scandal sheet gossip.In doing this, the authors never do this woman justice. Not only is Elizabeth an icon of our time, but she has become one of countries greatest AIDS activists.This in itself took tremendous courage! There is more to this woman than celluloid, and ex-husbands. Face it, she's one great dame! I wish to some day read a biography of her that truly celebrates the woman that is Elizabeth Taylor!

It's not the author's fault, but unfortunately the subject of this book is extremely boring. Two words describe Elizabeth Taylor's life, at least prior to her involvement with AIDS funding and research: WRETCHED EXCESS. This is not a fun read, not because the author didn't try, but because he wrote about a person that just wasn't very interesting.