The Queen’s Jubilee

This guide to resources about the Queen, in celebration of her 60 years on the throne, is brought to you by guest contributor, Margaret Brill.  Margaret is  British Studies librarian at Perkins Library and a former subject of Her Majesty.

 View key moments from the Thames River Pageant, courtesy of the BBC news, and 60 years of the Queen’s style in pictures from theguardian and not to be outdone, The Telegraph‘s 60 years in 60 photographs.

The Queen
Bradford, Sarah, 1938- Queen Elizabeth : her life in our times.  London : Viking, 2012.  Perkins/Bostock Library New & Noteworthy, DA590 .B695 2012

Brown, Susanna. Queen Elizabeth II : Portraits by Cecil Beaton. London : Victoria & Albert Publishing, 2011.   Lilly Library TR140.B438 B769 2011

Lacey, Robert.  A brief life of the Queen. London : Duckworth, 2012.  Perkins/Bostock Library.  [On order]

Moorhouse, Paul. The Queen : art & image. London : National Portrait Gallery ; Manchester [England] ; New York : In association with Hudson Hills Press, 2011.   Lilly Library N7639.E5 M66 2011

Smith, Sally Bedell, 1948- Elizabeth the Queen : inside the life of a modern monarch . New York : Random House, 2011.
Perkins/Bostock Library New & Noteworthy DA590 .S55

More materials about the Queen

The Monarchy
Olechnowicz, Andrzej, editor. The monarchy and the British nation, 1780 to the present.  Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2007.

The Coronation
Lloyd, Christopher, 1945- Ceremony & celebration: coronation day 1953. London : Royal Collection, 2003. Perkins/Bostock Library DA592 .L46 2003

Illustrated London News Coronation Number, Queen Elizabeth II.  LibraryService Center DA590 .I47 1953; Rubenstein Library  E f#326 c.1-2

The Official Website

BBC Jubilee Website

Queen Victoria’s Journals

UK National Archives Jubilee Website


The House of Windsor [videorecording] : from George to Kate.   Lilly Library, DVD 21665.

 Monarchy [videorecording].  by David Starkey. Lilly Library (1 copy available) Lilly Library, Series One: DVD 20804 disc1+2 c.1; Series Two: DVD 20805 disc1+2 c.1; Series Three: DVD 20806 disc1+2 c.1

The Queen [videorecording].   Movie starring Helen Mirren. Lilly Library DVD 10258.

A Queen is crowned [videorecording] Videocassette of the Coronation in 1953. Library Service Center VC 1995 c.1.









Bradford, Sarah, 1938-  Queen Elizabeth : her life in our times Get this title

London : Viking, 2012.
Library Location Call Number Status   Perkins/Bostock Library New & Noteworthy
Click for map
DA590 .B695 2012

Get this title

Bradford, Sarah, 1938-  Format: Book  Published: London : Viking, 2012.
Library Location Call Number Status   Perkins/Bostock Library New & Noteworthy
Click for map
DA590 .B695 2012


Downton Abbey @ Duke University Libraries

  1. Guest post by Margaret Brill

Are you pining for Downton Abbey?  Try reading about the lives of servants and their employers in that historical period. Check out Duke Libraries’ excellent selection below.

If you missed the program or individual episodes, Lilly Library has the DVDs of Season 1 and Season 2. You can borrow them for three days with a one-time online renewal.

Delap, Lucy. Knowing their Place : Domestic Service in Twentieth-Century Britain. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Perkins/Bostock New & Noteworthy HD8039.D52 G7185 2011

Pamela Horn, Life below stairs in the 20th century. Stroud: Sutton, 2001. Perkins/Bostock
Library HD6072.2.G7 H67 2001

Alison Maloney, Life below stairs : true lives of Edwardian servants. London: Michael O’Mara, 2011.

Margaret Powell, Below stairs : The classic kitchen maid’s memoir that inspired “Upstairs, Downstairs” and “Downton Abbey”. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012. Lilly Library Current Lit/Perkins/Bostock Library New & Noteworthy TX649.P68 A3 2012

Aristocracy and Country Houses
David Cannadine,  Aspects of aristocracy : grandeur and decline in modern Britain. New Haven: Yale University Press. Library Service Center  HT653.G7 C357 1994

Fiona, Countess of Carnarvon, Lady Almina and the real Downton abbey : The lost legacy of Highclere Castle. New York: Broadway Paperbacks. 2011.  Lilly Library Current Literature and Perkins/Bostock DA566.9.C376 C376 2011

Jessica Fellowes, The world of Downton Abbey. Ed. Nick Briggs. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press. 2011. Lilly Library Current Lit. and Perkins/Bostock New & Noteworthy PN1992.77.D695 F45 2011

Jessica Gerard, Country house life: family and servants, 1815-1914. Oxford England ; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1994 Library Service Center HQ613 .G47 1994

Girouard, Mark, 1931-. Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978. Perkins/Bostock HT653.G7 G57 1978 (and LSC)

M. Montgomery, Gilded Prostitution”: status, money, and transatlantic marriages, 1870-1914. London ; New York: Routledge, 1989. Perkins/Bostock HQ1032 .M65 1989

Web Sites
PBS Masterpiece


P.S. If Lilly’s copies of DA are checked out, don’t forget the series that started it all: Upstairs Downstairs. Gosford Park, The Forsyte Saga, Cranford and The Buccaneers are terrific as well.

Libraries designed for Humanists

[This is a guest post by Lee Sorensen, the Visual Studies and Dance librarian for Duke.  He selects for the arts and manages the public-interfaces for image collections.]

Recently I was helping a student looking for articles on spolia, recycled pillars, sculpture, etc. incorporated into the art of another era.  It was a particularly common practice in the middle ages.  Though there’s much written on this topic, it’s hard to get at those results.  The reason is because there’s no agreed term for this historic phenomenon.  Searchers using our catalog don’t find those titles, not because modern catalogs are computerized or the holdings aren’t well indexed, but because of a fundamental difference in humanities thinking from science thinking.  Designers of library catalogs conceive of information in scientific-language paradigms.  In the sciences—the social but particularly the natural sciences—things have very specific names.  If you’re looking for microbial genomes, you can type in ‘eukaryotic genome’ or a specific one, such as the microsporidian Encephalitozoan cuniculi and get pretty much all the literature on that topic. But humanists neither name things schematically or coin specialized terms in their research.  Humanities scholars describe their work in a string of common language words. Take for example, the most recent scholarly article in a film journal by a well-known scholar:

Nicola Mann. “Criminalizing ‘The Hood’: The Death of the Projects in the American Visual Imagination.” Afterimage 38 no. 6 (2011).

Every one of those terms is a simple word.  Searchers for blacks represented in urban film culture would never find this important article using adjacency searching (“Google searching”).  Key-word searching was developed post-World War II by the military and government-funded science contracts.  Those people were in no way thinking about looking for eighteenth-century garden theory or early Christian concepts of soteriology.  Though we assign extensive subject headings in our cataloging, the result is always artificial.  Humanities information— humanities knowledge—is idea based, not factoid based.  Perhaps the next time some report concludes that humanities scholars don’t employ technology as much as scientists (an assertion not validated by most statistics), a better question would be to ask why technology isn’t conceived to recognize humanities information as fundamentally different.

International Collections as National Resources

Just a few months before this year’s Fourth of July celebrations, a federal budget agreed upon by Congress and the President set  off a round of fireworks about as spectacular and festive as the  “rockets’ red glare” commemorated in our national anthem (which, as you recall, was composed by Francis Scott Key during the war-time bombardment of Ft. McHenry).

In mid-April, after yet another round of contentious political debate, Congress passed the  Continuing Resolution for the Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Budget, which among other things,  committed the Department of Education to a $50 million reduction in the $110 million line for  International and Foreign Language Education Programs.  This drastic budget cut dropped like a Tomahawk missile from a clear blue sky, stopping this year’s Fulbright- Hays Dissertation Grant dead in its tracks and critically-wounding Title VI, a program that funds the network of National Resource  Centers (NRCs), which for over fifty years have been committed to promoting the interdisciplinary  study of strategically-vital world regions such as the Middle East, Russia/Eastern Europe, and South Asia.

In response to this devastating attack on international education, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Institute of International Education, and several major research universities (including Duke), have stepped in to provide the needed funds for the  beleaguered programs, if only on a one-time, stop-gap basis. Their rationale is that this bridge-money would let every institution reeling from the Congressional bombshell take a moment to plan for its future, and either to scale back or to shift resources.

This battle in the continuing war over international education in general, and Title VI in particular, has far-reaching implications that affects academic libraries’ ability to support research and teaching in the humanities.  The strength of the university library has always been an important component of the Title VI grant application and, as a result, the library regularly received contributions to its materials  budget from the NRCs.  Because of drastic cuts for basic operations, however, most centers have  quite prudently decided to use the funds allocated for 2011-12 to save staff and teaching positions, rather than invest in library collections.  However, the decision forced on the NRCs by Congress will inevitably impact the individuals who use these very same  collections, namely, the students and researchers (both at Duke and beyond) who depend on the  library and who have come to expect that it will continue to provide the resources they need to  do their work.

If Title VI funding is circumscribed, and no additional funds are forthcoming, then the most likely outcome will be a loss in the diversity and depth of holdings that makes  international collections  truly unique, “special collections.” This outcome would undermine the  very purpose for which Title VI was created.  The terms of the grant from the Department of  Education specifically charge us to think broadly and beyond our own institutional walls and ivory towers. Consequently, a  research library at a university with a NRC is entrusted with more than just supplying course material and basic reference works for matriculating students and faculty.  NRC libraries are “National Resource centers”: we use Title VI funding to build diverse collections that we otherwise could not have afforded, coordinate our purchases so that we do not all buy the same materials, and continually assess and document how our materials are actually used in research and teaching, both locally and nationally. If the Congressmen who proposed slashing funding for International Education programs had first asked the NRCs for this data, we would have gladly provided them with it. But apparently the decision to target  international programs was guided less by evidence than by ideology.

In academic circles, it is a truism to say that the research library is central to the humanistic endeavor, and that it will continue to be so, with or without government funding. But unlike the inalienable rights enumerated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, this truth is  apparently not self-evident.  So if you have a strong opinion about the importance of international education and the humanities, make your voice  heard on this Fourth of July: let your Congressional  representatives know about the value of Title VI — and drop us a note when you do.  The National  Humanities Alliance has kindly posted on its website Title VI issue and action pages, including a  form letter with optional add-in information, which anyone can use to send a letter to their Representative and two Senators.

Innovators redefining the corporation

On May 11th, Stanford University created a buzz by hosting the Bibliotech Conference that brought together both industry and academic professionals to discuss, among many things, the value of a Humanities PhD.

The conference was live-streamed (available through June 2011) and brought together industry professionals from Google, Deloitte Center for Edge, TED, to name but a few, with academic professionals who have Humanities PhD’s.

Ruth Starkman’s title for the Huffington Post article announcing this conference read in part, “Humanities PhD s Hope to Storm Silicon Valley.”  As an educator who has spent most of her career on the administrative side of education, I tried to imagine what it would look like if traditional academics physically stormed into the Silicon Valley with rumpled tweed blazers and bow ties askew.  Would they have what it takes to help re-imagine and humanize the fast paced technology sectors?

Imagination aside, the streamed session that I saw showed me none of that.  Instead, there were statements about passion not being a solitary pursuit; that long term trust is needed to expose vulnerability; that given their education, Humanities scholars have a deeper understanding of human relationships.

From the corporate side, there was talk of the way one might bridge the divide between technology and humanities.  Folks with Humanities PhD s who now work on the corporate side said that the humanists bring an intellectual curiosity to the table as well as the ability to write with finesse using metaphor and storytelling skills.  This combined with the ability to research creates candidates for the corporate sector who are nimble enough to explain that technology is meant to facilitate our human experience.

One of the most interesting questions came late but drove home an important issue:  “How can the humanities methodology improve  so that we can innovate?”  This issue of innovation in education is a question that the Digital Humanities initiatives are addressing by creating labs where innovation can happen quickly, be brought in and tested.  And even in this new way of educational research, the difference between the academy and the corporate world lies between scale and speed.  What would it be like if, rather than having the Humanities storm Silicon Valley, if Silicon Valley came knocking?  What kinds of innovation would break out?  Perhaps there’s more to come at the upcoming Digital Humanities 2011 hosted by Stanford University Library.

[Photo of painter and etcher, Henry Ernest Schnakenberg by Paul Outerbridge, Archives of American Art]

Reinventing Researcher(es)

[This is a guest post by Lee Sorensen, the Visual Studies and Dance librarian for Duke.  He edits the Image Portal for Duke, as well as the Dictionary of Art Historians.]

The Research Information Network, Britain’s educational think-tank, took a look at how humanities scholars “do things” these days.  They looked at six humanities entities: two resources (the Old Bailey Online and the Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music, DIAMM—which is, I believe, what Chris Rock says when something confounds him); two academic departments (University of Birmingham’s English Department and University College London’s philosophy department); one field, corpus linguistics, and one collaborative project (The Digital Republic of Letters), to figure out how digital digital research in the humanities is.  Undaunted—or almost undaunted—by the eighty-six page document, several observations stood out at me.

A)    For Humanists, digitization creates a surrogate of the object of study, not a replication.  While the social scientists’ primary sources—the data set, the interview—is not altered by making it electronic, digitization to the musicologist, the art historian, or the choreographer, however,  creates a useful copy, but a source that doesn’t function the same way.  Digital humanities scholars find themselves in the same position as the first-year medical student:  the digital anatomy program is fine, but sooner or later you need a real patient.

B)    A second difference is that digital sources in the humanities haven’t replaced traditional scholarship, they’ve only added a new area.  Printed information in the humanities still rages even though many scientists claim they never read anything professional that isn’t on their computer screen.  Copyright restrictions to digital images or international property agreements mean that nearly as much is reported in hard copy, but the emergence of electronic sources is but one more place to go.

C)    Models in the humanities hide what is interpolation and what is research based.  A social scientist sees a graph and knows what’s a point plot and what’s a connecting line between them.  But in a reconstruction of a twelfth-century monastery, it isn’t clear how many adorsed capitals were taken from extent ruins and how many are speculations.

Humanists are often painted as electronically inept, which isn’t true.  While the report Reinventing Research delightfully assesses the even-pace of digital humanities scholarship, it reminds us that “research” as a concept is different across the university disciplines.

The Russian (Films) are Coming!!!

The Russian film company, Mosfilm, has produced some of the great classics of Soviet cinema. The company’s history is rooted in the early days of the Soviet Union and the ground-breaking cinema of the 1920s. Recently Mosfilm decided to make dozens of its best-known movies freely available on YouTube. The agreement between Mosfilm and YouTube means that an initial batch of 50 films that still have legendary status in Russia but are little known outside the country will for the first time find a wide foreign audience. Unabridged versions of these films have been posted with subtitles. Mosfilm hopes to add five new films every week so that by the end of the year a library of 200 films will be available in high definition.

 The main Mosfilm website offers a wide range of Russian and Soviet films to view (free!) and download ($2.30 per title!), including many with subtitles. There is an English language navigation option, and the films are presented in excellent quality (less compressed than those on YouTube), with image and sound restored along with brief annotations. This fabulous project was launched with 142 films; today there are over 580 titles with more being added. 

The Mosfilm YouTube directory/website is in Russian; Google Language Tools provides a Russian to English translation. Many of the Mosfilm titles are available on DVD in the US, such as White Sun of the Desert (1969, dir. Vladimir Motyl) and films of Andrey Tarkovsky. But there are some real rarities, for example a subtitled version of Ivan Pyryev’s notorious Stalin-era kolkhoz musical, Kuban Cossacks (1949, dir. Ivan Pyriev). Go forth, and view!


The British Monarchy

[This is a guest post by Margaret Brill, Librarian for Britain/Ireland, Canada, Australasia, World History and Medieval/Renaissance Studies]

The wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton on April 29th has provoked widespread interest in the British Monarchy here in the USA, and even in the Duke community.    A frequent question is “Why doesn’t The Queen step down so Prince Charles can be King?” Some people even wonder why they don’t pass over Prince Charles altogether in favor of Prince William, presumably because Prince William is younger and hunkier.  Then there is the question of Prince Charles’ wife Camilla.  Can she be Queen?  Will he be King if she can’t?   In this blog entry I will attempt to answer these questions and suggest some resources for people who would like to learn more about the monarchy.

The British monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.  So Britain (or The United Kingdom as it is officially called) is also a democracy.   The constitutional foundation for the monarchy today is based on the Act of Settlement of 1701, which was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne, and to strengthen the guarantees for ensuring a parliamentary system of government.  The Act addressed the dynastic and religious aspects of succession, and it also further restricted the powers and prerogatives of the Crown.  It reinforced the Bill of Rights of 1689 which made monarchy clearly conditional on the will of Parliament and provided a freedom from arbitrary government.   The Act also provided that judges were to hold office on good conduct and not at Royal pleasure – thus establishing judicial independence.

Therefore the succession is not a question of choice on the part of the Monarch but is laid down in the British Constitution and as the oldest son of the reigning Monarch Prince Charles will succeed his mother and become King on her death.  There is no precedent or reason why she would abdicate unless she was unable to perform the duties of Head of State.    One of these duties is to be the titular Head of the Church of England, which is an established church.   Since the Church of England still doesn’t recognize the remarriage of divorced persons Camilla cannot be Queen unless Parliament changes the canon law of the Church of England but she could still be the King’s wife with a suitable title.  After all, Prince Philip, the Queen’s husband, is not King.  I  do not believe Prince Charles would step down if Camilla were not given the title of Queen.  Whether he is popular or not does not affect the succession. Unless he does something unconstitutional (such as interfere in politics) there would be no reason for Parliament to remove him.  Anyone in line of succession to the throne has to get permission to marry or lose their place in line.   Prince Charles was given permission by the government to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, whereas King Edward VIII was not allowed to marry Wallis Simpson in 1936, which led to his abdication.  In some ways the Royals have less personal freedom than their subjects.

How relevant is the monarchy today?   As you can see from the above the British constitution depends on the Monarch to be Head of State, as do the countries in the Commonwealth Realm, including Canada and Australia, so it would be very complicated to abolish the monarchy.  Moreover, much of the tradition and ceremonial tourists enjoy so much in Britain is associated with the Monarchy so many feel that the cost is justified.

For more information about the British Monarchy see the official website.
For Duke University Library resources on Britain see the British and Irish Studies Library Guide.

Or take a look at this Reference book: The Kings and Queens of England, by John Ashton Cannon, Oxford University Press, 2009.

New Open Access Journal from German Studies at Duke and Uni Duisburg-Essen

The Duke and Uni Duisburg-Essen German Department journal andererseits: Yearbook of Transatlantic German Studies is one of two publications chosen as pilot projects for the Open Access journal publishing system (OJS) supported by Duke Libraries.

The Open Access (OA) Online Publishing movement advocates placing scholarly articles on the Internet and granting free access to scholarly materials to a worldwide audience. The OA movement started around 2001 mostly in the sciences and Charles W. Bailey gives an exhaustive overview in Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography. Over the past ten years OA publishing has gone from being an alternative to becoming the desired venue for publishing research, and Duke University joined the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) in October of 2010.  Increasing access to knowledge in service of society is one of Duke University’s strategic plan goals; and while the use of materials published OA online is free of charge for the reader, OA publishing does generate costs for the author and their institution. For this reason the Office of the Provost with Duke University Libraries created the COPE fund to support the OA initiative.

Why was andererseits a great candidate for Open Access? The German Department at Duke and the Department of Germanic Literatures at the University Duisburg –Essen have been collaborating on research since 2006. The collaboration has included an exchange of graduate students and faculty, collaborative advising on research projects and dissertations, as well as the establishment of a yearly international research symposium in 2009. The papers from the 2009 conference were published in the first edition of the print journal andererseits: Yearbook of Transatlantic German Studies. The title “andererseits” is a play of words meaning “on the other hand” but also “from the other side” (of the ocean) thus highlighting the international and interdisciplinary nature of the research presented in the journal. The inaugural 2010 print edition is available in several libraries in Germany, but is not available in the United States. Since this is a new journal in pursuit of an audience – rather than an established print journal with a large subscriber base, it is a perfect candidate for exploring an Open Access publishing model to increase the number of readers, to increase use in teaching and research, and to increase the impact of the scholarship on the discipline of German Studies.

The content submitted for the forthcoming 2011 edition of andererseits is housed centrally by the Open Journal System Database at Duke Libraries. The fact that authors, contributors, reviewers, and editors are located across the ocean from each other makes the online submission of content, the peer review process and the subsequent editing by the authors in one (virtual) place a particularly efficient workflow. Every participant in this process has a unique login and the OJS database at Duke allows for layers of permissions to safeguard both the content and the anonymity and rigor of the review process. The journal is edited jointly by Professors William Collins Donahue at Duke University and Jochen Vogt at the Universität Duisburg-Essen.

The online Open Access format will not only make international collaboration among researchers more seamless, it also offers to be a venue to publish content usually excluded from scholarly print journals, like creatively literary endeavors, translations, conference papers, papers in a pre-publication format, and exceptional undergraduate research selected by a board of editors. OJS also allows for embedding of multimedia content such as video, audio and images.

The scholarly communications officer at Duke Libraries, Kevin Smith, has provided extensive advice on copyright questions to the authors and editors of this new online journal. Kevin Smith’s copyright expertise (and blog), the Duke Library informational site on Open Access Publishing and the library’s Information Technology experts are available to any department at Duke that wishes to investigate Open Access journal publishing.

When the review process for the 2011 edition of andererseits: Yearbook of Transatlantic German Studies is finished, the published journal can be found in the OJS database. A preview is available at the following URL:

Please contact Winston Atkins ( for further information about OJS at Duke Libraries.

The Book in Flux, Real or Perceived

Obituaries for “the book,” or at least the printed book, continue to pile up — for instance, this interesting pseudo-obituary and reframing of book as concept rather than container by Kevin Kelly, founding editor of Wired magazine.  It’s a fascinating piece; for libraries, here’s a provocative (if familiar) sentence: “In the long run (next 10-20 years) we won’t pay for individual books any more than we’ll pay for individual songs or movies. All will be streamed in paid subscription services; you’ll just “borrow” what you want.”

That prediction does recall much of the academic library’s experience with e-journals and digitized text databases for the past fifteen years.  However, simply stating that it will be so overlooks the massive complexity involved in copyright and licensing agreements, and the question of who gets a seat at the table in the negotiations over such agreements.  In addition, there remains the question of who Kelly’s “we” is, and how such streaming services might disenfranchise those who could not afford hardware, software, bandwidth, or the subscription services themselves.  And so we have libraries.

Beyond all of that, there remains the simple, irrefutable fact that the printed book is not dead, and not even apparently ill.  One million new titles in print this year — nearly double that number counting alternative channels like self-published and print-on-demand books — does not indicate anything like death.  Books are not printed out of nostalgia or intractable tradition, but to make money, and to meet a (perceived) need or desire.  It would appear that money is still being made, needs and desires are still being met, and libraries are still being filled by these objects.