Check out ''The Life and Times of ..." series. The general editor was Antonia Fraser, a very respected British historian.
It's nice that you think highly of Fraser. After all, if we agreed about everything, we'd have nothing to talk about.
Antonia Fraser,
Royal Charles, 1979, page 25:
“[Charles I]
did attend [the Earl of Strafford’s trial in 1641],
but in order to remain incognito – in theory, if not in practice – stationed himself in a box; he was accompanied at times by the Queen, his brother-in-law the Elector Palatine, and his daughter Mary.”Frederick V, Elector Palatine, the "Winter King" of Bohemia, Charles’s brother-in-law, died in 1632. See Patrick Morrah,
Rupert of the Rhine, 1976, page 28 (Fraser listed Morrah’s book among her sources consulted at the end of her book).
Royal Charles, page 224:
“
Soon yachts were all the rage…Prince Rupert’s yacht Fanfan even took part in an engagement during the Dutch War. This did not stop the Prince referring to the King’s passion as part of the general levity of the new royal set: ‘The King, with his characteristic frivolity, had a yacht moored opposite Whitehall in which he might fancy himself at sea. The childish hobby was appropriately called The Folly, and aboard this yacht was one of the many lounging places of the court.' But age was making the former swash-buckling commander cantankerous.”
Fraser cited Peter Heaton,
Yachting, A History, 1955, as her source for the quote. She would have done better to consult Morrah, who noted that Rupert liked ships and the sea and was often in Charles II’s company. Better yet, she should have consulted Eliot Warburton’s
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers, 1849, volume III, page 470. Warburton (not Rupert and/or any of the Cavaliers) had this to say about Charles's love of yachting:
“
Yachting then became a fashion: with characteristic frivolity, Charles even had a vessel moored opposite to Whitehall, in which he might fancy himself at sea. This childish hobby was appropriately named The Folly, and formed one amongst the many lounging places of the court.” Royal Charles, page 434:
“
The vast family of Elizabeth of Bohemia had proved itself as yet astonishingly infertile: the Elector Palatine was childless, while one sister had succeeded Madame as the next Duchesse d’Orleans, which put her within the unsuitable French orbit. Prince Rupert had died a bachelor at the end of the previous year.”Fraser’s book was awfully long; perhaps she decided to omit the existence of Edward’s three daughters and their children to conserve space. If you don’t know who Edward was, see Morrah’s book. Fraser did mention George of Hanover's existence (page 434) but omitted the existence of his siblings. One of Morrah’s themes was that Rupert and his siblings lacked opportunities (including, for most of them, the opportunity to marry) because of their poverty and because many of them died young.
I chose to highlight the aforementioned mistakes because Fraser claimed that she’d read many biographies of Rupert in the glowing review she gave Charles Spencer’s ghastly new biography of same:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,,2109185,00.htmlIn the review, Fraser fouled up a statement by the Winter Queen (“
he - the WQ was referring to Karl-Ludwig, not Rupert-
cannot too soon be a soldier…”). Fraser also said that she’d once treasured a picture she'd torn out of Margaret Irwin’s novel
The Stranger Prince. What a pity that Fraser didn’t see fit to mention that that picture was a portrait of Edward that was misidentified as Rupert in Irwin’s era:
http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=25483Back to the original topic: if anyone else has any "wonderful" biographies of Anne to recommend, please do so.