The Three Emperors: Three Cousins, Three Empires and the Road to World War One [Paperback]

This is an excellent investigation into what can happen when rulers equate divine right with competence and sound judgement. We see the results of a system of hereditary monarchy in three different cases and how their own personalities and the influences around them shaped not only their lives but their relationships with each other, which in turn filtered down to the general population and set up national prejudices which led to mass slaughter in the first world war.

The extraordinary thing is that none of these men were trained in any way for a job that required serious skills in diplomacy, political philosophy and history. It was assumed, not least by the protagonists, that just being royal was enough to carry them through. This is something unthinkable in the present age of job-training and specialisation. The author traces the development of each of the emperors within the contexts of their countries and their times.

The other extraordinary thing is that there was no REAL reason for the first world war, other than power games and juggling of alliances between countries. So much of this was influenced by the monarchs who chose their ministers accordingly.

There was the Kaiser with his war-mongering, which was just a lot of braggadoccio, and left him very distressed when the war did come. There was Edward VII who couldn't stand his nephew and tried to foster an entente cordiale with France. Then later there was George V who was sincere and decent but also boring and weak, who apparently loved his Russian relations. Luckily he was a constitutional monarch so couldn't do too much damage.

But of course the greatest tragedy was Nicholas II of Russia, who was not only weak, but also had a deep sense of divine right, no notion of the real problems of his country,a German wife who interfered in government with actually no idea of what was appropriate, and a haemophiliac son whose disease they felt they had to keep secret, so they retreated more and more into themselves, heavily under the influence of the so-called healer, Rasputin.

These three families, all blood relations, show us family drama working out on a large scale. Miranda Carter takes us into the three households where we observe and start to understand the complex factors at work among these hugely privileged but fundamentally undistinguished, people. The story makes 'Dallas' seem trivial. This is an account of how individuals can contribute to world changes, just by being who they are, with their loves, fears, weaknesses and shortcomings. In this case there were massive implications for millions of people, both in Europe and even elsewhere. It is a riveting tale of love, hate, folly, intolerance and misguided self-confidence.

Like many books today Miranda Carter's account of the years leading to the First World War is not edited enough. Sometimes the crisp narrative becomes dull and one seems to tread old ground. The dating confuses every so often. As the extended royal family of northern Europe naturally communicates on Christian name terms it would be good to have consistency but nicknames intrude and force one pause for thought too many. But this is a pretty readable read. The influence of kings, as, in this case, it fades, but nonetheless with a glow, has something like a mystical resonance and, while other factors were critical - of course it was never uniquely the fractured personalities and poor education of the monarchs of the great powers that led to confrontation and disaster - the catastrophe of the 1914-18 War becomes plausibly an almost necessary consequence of the autocratic muddle in Russia (to which the Czar was committed), and the fatal separatism of the German military (to which the Kaiser contributed); and of the restrictive caste code of the era (which all supported). There is a hint that the political ambitions of royals, even the restricted constitutional royals of Great Britain, were tinged always with risk, given that Edward VII's European diplomacy contributed to the involvement of his country in continental stress, committing Britain ultimately to war. Anyone with an interest in Queen Victoria should certainly take a look, as Carter's account of Europe's grandmother is beguilingly tough.

Unfortunately, I cannot rate Miranda Carter's book as highly as many of the other reviewer's have. And this is mainly for two reasons. First, the book is confusing. Although there is a general historical progression throughout the whole book, beginning with the births of these three rulers and ending with the aftermath of World War 1, within each chapter and sometimes from chapter to chapter the chronology flips around so much you cannot remember where you are. This can often happen from paragraph to paragraph, or even from line to line. The problem is compounded by the fact that she changes the name of the people to fit the time. Therefore she may talk about Bertie one minute, but one line later he's Edward VII, and then back again. But the general time confusion makes this book difficult to read as events are reported out of order and involve so many different people (as political appointments change with time) that it is hard to remember who is who and who is doing what and when.

Second, as other reviewers have pointed out, she is quite cynical about all three emperors and their monarchies. In fact, she is not just cynical, but condescending, and ultimately lacks objectivity. She basically treats them as fools. Now, it is no doubt that each of these men had flaws, some more serious than others, but to consider them absurd and foolish, is over simplifying their reigns. She downright insults Edward VII for being overweight. And she spends a lot of time focusing on the fact that royalty in general are intensely focused on external appearance and duty. One may not like or agree with this, but for the monarchies this was not merely a frivolous focus on inessentials, but part of what they believed set them apart from the rest of us. It is part of the essence of royalty itself and should be given a more objective consideration, rather than be seen as the foolish focus of incompetent monarchs who can't decide what matters of actual political significance are.

On the other hand, it is a good overview of the main issues and personalities that would eventually culminate in the First World War. I have just read Nicholas & Alexandra by Robert K Massie, and one thing I particularly liked about Carter's book is that she does not have the usual soft-spot for the tsar so many Russian historians have. She is much more objective (except where she steps over the line as mentioned above), and obviously critical, of the tsar's reign, and she doesn't attempt to explain away his mistakes by suggesting that bad advice, lack of training, and a love of spending time with his family were the only real reasons for his failed ability to lead Russia at the turn of the century. No, here the Tsar is given responsibility and culpability for some of the disasters of his reign, particularly the many pogroms that occurred. These were not the result of anti-Semitic ministers alone, but the tsar certainly approved, if not actually encouraged, these atrocities. The same is true for the 1905 revolution. The tsar seemed to have no problem with firing into the otherwise peaceful crowd in order to avoid some potentially greater threat to the monarchy. Interestingly, the role of Wilhelm II in Russia's politics is seen differently in both books. For Massie, Wilhelm seems to have had a great influence over Nicholas, taking responsibility for the Russo-Japanese war, for example, away from Nicholas and placing it with the Kaiser. However, Carter shows us that actually the relationship between the cousins was never so cosy that Nicholas would have taken much practical advice from him. So once again she puts responsibility for the mistakes of Nicholas's reign squarely on his own shoulders.

I also found some other interesting facts about Grand Duke Sergei enlightening, as I have not read anything about his troubled marriage before in the few previous books I've read on the Romanovs.

Essentially, however, I have great reservations in recommending this book as I am sure that those interested in these monarchies or the origins of the First World War can find better, more objective, and less confusing histories to read.