The Last Queen: Elizabeth II's Seventy Year Battle to Save the House of Windsor

First: this is a fun read. I've read and followed the Windsors and their adventures, so much of the book's content was familiar to me. What was different and fascinating was this author's unique take on the events, as Irving is a journalist whose career has coincided with Queen Elizabeth II's reign. He tells these stories from the perspective of a Fleet Street reporter on the ground, describing how the the pieces of each event were discovered by the press and put together. And as a journalist rather than a biographer, he delivers some incisive observations and conjectures about the motivating factors and inner workings of the Royal Family.However: what's with the title? I had expected to read an in-depth analysis of QE II's evolving relationship with the press and the public over the course of her 70 year reign: as well as a thoughtful analysis why Irving concludes that Her Majesty is the "Last Queen". In actuality, very little in the book relates directly to Queen Elizabeth. With only one exception, Irving describes her role in the major newsworthy events of her reign as mostly unemotional, distant, and out of synch with the times. And he never addresses the reason behind his calling her "The Last Queen", other than his personal conjecture on the book's second page that QE II could have reviewed her long reign and come to that conclusion, inexplicably, while attending Harry and Meghan's wedding. This conjecture of Irving's came out of nowhere, and he doesn't directly address the issue again (I kept waiting for it).This book is not about the Queen, but about the media, the press, and its author's coverage of the events of her reign. A better title would be something like "The Windsors and The Press: a Fleet Street insider's view of QE II's reign". This is because most of the ink covers the events involving the other major players in the Royal drama: Prince Phillip, Prince Charles, Margaret and Tony, Diana, William and Harry, etc.: while the Queen herself is only briefly depicted through her reactions to all of her family's shenanigans.That being said: "The Last Queen" is compulsively readable, and I do recommend it to any royal family aficionado. Not what I expected from the title, but an enjoyable read nonetheless.

This book was more about the author; his past jobs, his experiences and the people he knew. This is not a bad thing but he never ties it to the premiss of the book which is The Queen and how the Monarch may be a thing of the past. I did not learn one new thing about the Queen or her experiences. No new insight into her personality. I did spend much time looking up words as the author felt the need to impress the reader with outdated words. A waste of time and money!

I'm about half-way through and I guess I'll finish it sometime, but as of now I'm giving it a rest. What a disappointment and a waste of money. If you're looking for something about the Queen, you won't get it here. So far, she's only been mentioned in passing. There were a few interesting pages about Margaret, and then back to boredom. It's mostly about the news business, etc, people I've never heard of, etc. If like me, you are looking for a good book about the Queen and the Royal Family, look elsewhere.

This book is more about the author than the Queen. What a waste of my money😩

Clive Irving, a columnist for the Daily Beast and is a pioneer of investigative journalism and was acquainted with royal personages like Antony Armstrong Jones (Tony) who married Princess Margaret. Irving writes about Queen Elizabeth, the longest reigning monarch in British history. Irving states: "No British monarch has faced such an extended and turbulent period of change." The author's career as a journalist has run parallel with Queen Elizabeth's reign. Through all the scandals, "It seems that the monarchy would not survive, but somehow it did." This book covers various events including scandals: Princess Margaret deciding not to marry divorced Peter Townsend; her relationship and later marriage to Anthony Armstrong Jones (who became Earl Snowdon) and the scandals of that marriage; Prince Philip as consort and his marriage to Elizabeth II; the Queen and her Prime Ministers; the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and the abdication; Prince Charles and his life and work as heir to the throne; the revelations about Lord Mountbatten; Charles and Diana's marriage and divorce; the lives of William and Harry; and Prince Andrew's association with Jeffrey Epstein and his disastrous TV interview; the marriage and divorce of Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew; and the impact on the Queen of the death of Princess Diana. The media coverage of the royals is explored and its change throughout the years: "Royal journalism," according to the author," became the most profitable stream of celebrity journalism, and the royal family assumed the role of a compulsively viewable soap opera." Overall, a very insightful book about the royal family and how it survived change and indiscretions of some of the royal family. Some information about Diana needs correction though. The author maintains that she Diana had an "affair" with Barry Mannakee, her police bodyguard. He cites the Settelen interview but leaves out the question that Settelen asked Diana re: Mannakee "was it sexual?" and Diana said NO. Also, the author wrote that Dr. Khan terminated his affair with Diana. Khan himself was interviewed and said Diana cut off contact with him by changing her phone number, so she dropped him. I also wonder about the sentence "If Charles had gathered as many lovers as Diana, he would have been stigmatize as a serial lecher." Charles sowed wild oats and did have many women in his life including the tragic Lady Dale Tryon who was his married mistress in the seventies and he was serious about several other women besides Diana and Camilla and proposed to at least two other women. He also had many women in his life and followed Mountbatten's advice to sow wild oats. He also writes "Diana's affairs were flagrantly public." They were not since it was only when Hewitt cooperated with author Pasternack, did the public know about this. Diana and Dr. Khan notoriously did not go public and he was ushered in secret to Kensington Palace. HE also maintains Diana was a "bad loser." In fact, Charles cooperated with writers like Penny Junor and Sally Bedell Smith who were Charles sympathizers and Diana did not come out looking well (this after her death) . Charles also made a point of telling his biographer he never loved Diana. So he was not exactly Squeaky Clean. I also don't agree that the reaction to Diana's death was "collective hysteria." In fact, the public was wondering why the Queen did not comment until persuaded by Tony Blair. The last few chapters discuss more recent events like Harry and Meghan leaving the UK and the Queen's protection of Prince Andrew in light of the Epstein scandal. Those who are fans of the Crown should read this book and also those interested in royalty.

What a waste of my money. This is all about the author with snips about the Queen. Don't waste your money. The title is so phony

For a start, the title is very misleading. If you are expecting some yet unrevealed insights into the life and times of QE, you will be sadly disappointed. Most of the information in the book is about other people, and there are no revelations, just well worn stories from the press and other authors. For some strange reason the author includes endless pages and anecdotes about 'Tony', the husband of QE's sister Margaret. Seems he knew 'Tony' personally and now wants to fill the pages of a book, supposedly about QE, with how clever and 'hip' he was, and rehash the dirt on his unhappy marriage to Margaret. Very irrelevant and boring.There was also a lot of detailed information about such things as the ' Profumo ' scandal which seemed out of place. While some of the historical political details were interesting, there was far too much, and the text badly needed editing. Where the author really lost me though was his saccharine sweet praise of QE's errant grandson Harry. This is a fairly recent publication, and most of the information quoted about him is outdated and acknowledged to be false ( eg that he qualified as a combat helicopter pilot and was in the front line in Afghanistan). Anyone who reads the news now knows that lies such as these were a clever and deliberate PR exercise by the palace to improve the image of the wayward prince. Why an author would include these sugary, nonsense statements as facts, without as much as a small query is beyond me. Was he fearful of being sued???? That was the point I gave up on this book, and failed to finish it. My recommendation- Don't waste your money........

No sentiment, all based on reality What a good writer.