I've read about half of it now. It's not terrible, but it does have annoying tendencies, like making judgments about people's characters without saying what he's basing those judgments on. Show your sources, arrgh. Many books have that tendency, to be sure. Also it has a tendency to be cock-sure about things which I think it would behoove him to show more humility. I may just skip forward past the '45 to where it might contain some new-to-me things.
Some random annoying quotes: - "Was [BPC]'s enterprise a rational one, or was it a mad, quixotic, juvenile scheme worthy only of a Polish blockhead?" What on earth. Why the random dissing of the Poles?? - "The 'internal saboteur' in the prince's mind, responsible for his self-destructive behaviour on the back through northern England, now manifested itself as illness. From 5-16 January Charles lay seriously ill with influenza and a high fever at Bannockburn House." Or perhaps...he was infected with a virus... I mean, I'm not denying that one's state of mind can influence health, but to state so categorically that he had the flu because of "internal sabotage"! - McLynn is also categorically sure that the Jacobites should have disputed the crossing of the Spey (just before Culloden), and even goes so far as to say that the "villain of the piece" of them not doing so was O'Sullivan. Compare this with Duffy's presentation of the same issue in Fight for a Throne where he discusses the pros and cons of doing so, showing that it was by no means an obvious choice, and the way the actions of the Hanoverians influenced the issue, and does not call anyone a villain. I have to say, Duffy is WAY better at nuance and at justifying his judgments (not to mention, in this particular case he is a military historian and McLynn isn't).
Good grief. I'm feeling so vindicated in having disliked this book 25 years ago, as well as not having finished his bio of Marcus Aurelius 12 years ago!
What on earth. Why the random dissing of the Poles??
I could see a *contemporary* doing it, since the Poles didn't have the greatest reputation in this period (their country is soon to be dismantled), and BPC's mother was Polish...but what's McLynn's excuse in 1988?
Could this McLynn be a British Tory? Because I remember quite a lot of anti-Polish bias and demagogery pre Brexit in Britain. Poles - who because of GB's membership in the EU could work in GB - were accused of taking "English" work places etc, of thievery and what not. It seems to have been such a wide spread bias that when the short lived Doctor Who spin-off Class included a Polish character, Mateusz, as one half of its gay couple, the other half being a genuine alien (as in, from outer space), the parallels of xenophobic bias did not have to be spelled out.
Hmm. McLynn did also write The Road Not Taken: How Britain Narrowly Missed a Revolution which I have read parts of, where he seems genuinely interested in how Britain at various points in its history could have had revolutions. He didn't seem in that book to be dismissive of various radical concerns.
"The 'internal saboteur' in the prince's mind, responsible for his self-destructive behaviour on the back through northern England, now manifested itself as illness. From 5-16 January Charles lay seriously ill with influenza and a high fever at Bannockburn House."
Wooooow. Next time I get the flu (or, I guess, covid) I will go around telling everyone I have an "internal saboteur," I guess :P (Viruses! They are the true internal saboteur!)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahn
Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)
Date: 2024-02-18 11:07 pm (UTC)Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)
Date: 2024-02-19 08:06 pm (UTC)Some random annoying quotes:
- "Was [BPC]'s enterprise a rational one, or was it a mad, quixotic, juvenile scheme worthy only of a Polish blockhead?"
What on earth. Why the random dissing of the Poles??
- "The 'internal saboteur' in the prince's mind, responsible for his self-destructive behaviour on the back through northern England, now manifested itself as illness. From 5-16 January Charles lay seriously ill with influenza and a high fever at Bannockburn House."
Or perhaps...he was infected with a virus... I mean, I'm not denying that one's state of mind can influence health, but to state so categorically that he had the flu because of "internal sabotage"!
- McLynn is also categorically sure that the Jacobites should have disputed the crossing of the Spey (just before Culloden), and even goes so far as to say that the "villain of the piece" of them not doing so was O'Sullivan. Compare this with Duffy's presentation of the same issue in Fight for a Throne where he discusses the pros and cons of doing so, showing that it was by no means an obvious choice, and the way the actions of the Hanoverians influenced the issue, and does not call anyone a villain. I have to say, Duffy is WAY better at nuance and at justifying his judgments (not to mention, in this particular case he is a military historian and McLynn isn't).
Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)
Date: 2024-02-20 02:12 am (UTC)What on earth. Why the random dissing of the Poles??
I could see a *contemporary* doing it, since the Poles didn't have the greatest reputation in this period (their country is soon to be dismantled), and BPC's mother was Polish...but what's McLynn's excuse in 1988?
Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)
Date: 2024-02-20 06:55 am (UTC)Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)
Date: 2024-02-20 10:06 am (UTC)Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)
Date: 2024-02-23 01:07 am (UTC)Wooooow. Next time I get the flu (or, I guess, covid) I will go around telling everyone I have an "internal saboteur," I guess :P (Viruses! They are the true internal saboteur!)