3 of 5 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Sweet William or the Butcher?: The Duke of Cumberland and the '45 (Hardcover)From the title you would assume this is an unbiased book. It is not. This is an author who feels that Cumberland has had an underserved bad reputation. He sets out from the first to prove that we have all been wrong about the Duke. Everything is pointed towards whitewashing the Duke's reputation. Everything seems to say that the Jacobites were savages and deserved what was done to them because this is what happened at the time. Everything quoted is to the Duke's benefit and nothing critical is mentioned at all. Very much a whitewash.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 22 Oct 2010 12:20:16 BDT
A biassed historian - whatever next! Everyone who writes historian is biassed - indeed, every human being is so. The issue here is that the reviewer doesn't like the bias here, but presumably prefers the bias of the pro-Jacobite historians, and they are in a majority. Perhaps those who don't share their views should keep quiet and not rock the boat of Jacobite consensus? As the author concludes, the Duke was neither the Butcher (an English term) or Sweet William, but a man of his times with a difficult job to do (or wors to that effect). General Whitworth's biography of the Duke is sympathetic, too, so Cumberland haters should avoid that.
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2010 19:50:05 BDT
Anna Geddes says:
I am neither Jacobite nor Hanoverian and wanted to be able to see this from an unbiased point of view. I do not think that the aurhor concluded that the Duke was not the butcher, I felt that the author was trying to make the point that William Augustus was Sweet William. I would love to find a book that is purely neutral so I can make sense of the period with out the bitterness
‹ Previous 1 Next ›