<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on A Treasury of Royal Scandals</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:18:17 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Michael Farquhar</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/07/232930.php#comment-138630</link>
<description>Dear Brooke,
Thank you for your generous review of my book. I&#039;m glad you (and your therapist) enjoyed it. However, I must ask you to elaborate on your assertion that &quot;at times this book is peppered with historical inaccuracies or occasionally embellished.&quot; What are the inaccuracies? And where are the embellishments? Having scrupulously researched the book, I am very anxious to hear of specific errors or exaggerations. You ask &quot;who cares?&quot; I  do. In my mind, the book only works because the stories are all true. If they weren&#039;t, this would be a so-so collection of fictionalized history. And what fun is that? Thanks for your attention.
Michael Farquhar</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">138630@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:18:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/07/232930.php#comment-137518</link>
<description>pithy and juicy Brooke - thanks and welcome!</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">137518@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:21:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>