The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Library (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/)
-   -   "The Mystery of Princess Louise" by Lucinda Hawksley (2013) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/the-mystery-of-princess-louise-by-lucinda-hawksley-2013-a-36252.html)

CarolynHarris 01-04-2014 08:20 PM

"The Mystery of Princess Louise" by Lucinda Hawksley (2013)
 
1 Attachment(s)
Has anyone else read this book - I do not agree that Princess Louise had a secret child before her marriage for the reasons explained in my review of the book.

The Mystery of Princess Louise: Queen Victoria’s Rebellious Daughter by Lucinda Hawksley (Review) | Carolyn Harris: Royal Historian

v cover
illustration used for promotional purposes

mslewis 01-04-2014 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolynHarris (Post 1630630)
Has anyone else read this book - I do agree that Princess Louise had a secret child before her marriage for the reasons explained in my review of the book.

The Mystery of Princess Louise: Queen Victoria’s Rebellious Daughter by Lucinda Hawksley (Review) | Carolyn Harris: Royal Historian

Unfortunately, this author, the man claiming to be her son (or grandson, whatever) and any other person can write whatever they want to write about Princess Louise because the Royal Family will never comment and there will be no DNA tests so we will never know the truth. I refuse to think about, read about or believe any speculation based on rumors regarding the life of this woman. What's the point?

So, the short answer is . . . NO I have not read this book and I will never read it or your review of it. I have better things to do with my time, thankyouverymuch!!

Ish 01-04-2014 10:16 PM

@CarolynHarris: here you say that you believe Louise had a secret child because of the book's argument, but I got the impression from your review that you weren't impressed with the book itself or the way that the author didn't seem to get her history right. What exactly about this book made you believe the secret child argument?

CarolynHarris 01-04-2014 11:18 PM

Whoops - I meant to say I do not agree - sorry about the typo!

Ish 01-04-2014 11:26 PM

Haha, that makes a lot more sense.

Iluvbertie 01-04-2014 11:28 PM

One thing Queen Victoria was very, very strict about was that her daughters were never left alone with a man, any man from about the age of 12 - 13 (except Albert with the two older ones before he died of course) until they were married - not even their brothers or fiancées.

kathl29 01-04-2014 11:32 PM

I read your review with interest and agree that it is very unlikely that Princess Louise had a secret love child for some of the reasons you mentioned.

It seems to be a common theme in authors that do not have strong arguments to claim that all documents are being with held from their research. While in some circumstances this is undoubtedly the case it is also a convenient way of not citing actual evidence to prove your claims.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises