If, like me, you were to read this book to learn more about the French Revolution, you will be disappointed. Mr Clarke has written it to pat the British on the head for their perspicacity in retaining a monarchy. The French, we are told, are envious of our royal family which 'holds British history together'.

I find it strange how all these countries are so in awe of our royal family (we are always being told that the Americans wish that they had such a tradition too) and yet, none of the major world powers make any attempt to set up their own monarchy.

The argument that a monarchy links history is a very real one: look at Britain, it finds it much more important that some non-entity called Black Rod (Not an invention of a racist pornographic film!) wears the correct stockings for the state opening of parliament, in a building that was never designed to support parliamentarians, but is a pretence of greater history than its two hundred years.

The book criticises the French Revolution for its failure to give women the rights which it offered to men. I agree that this would have been a good thing but, at the time, it would have made France unique: the British were hardly offering women full rights either (women weren't officially allowed to play football until 1972!).

All in all, a very disappointing read. Stephen Clarke is, of course, entitled to his view upon the various advantages of total monarchy, a constitutional monarchy or a republic. If he wishes to write about same, that too is fine... my question is: why pretend that his concern is with the French Revolution? ( )

I have enjoyed everyone of this authors books and this was no different. Stephen Clarke's irreverent view of history finely balances historical facts with an entertaining style. I really liked this book and was sorry to finish it -roll on the next one! ( )

Stephen Clarke, you treasure, where were you when I was reading about the F-Rev ten years ago? He reduces all those dry academic tomes I waded through - purely out of historical interest - into doorstops and kindling. Also, as the title indicates, Clarke takes a fresh view of the Revolution - not apologist exactly, but definitely inclined towards monarchist, which suits me - I always had a soft spot for poor useless Louis XVI - but might piss off a few French or American readers. Bonus.

Clarke delivers more or less the same potted history of France, from Louis XIV, the Sun King, who built Versailles, to the beheading of his grandson in 1793 and the extended power struggle that eventually saw Napoleon seize power, but he does so in accessible language and with HUMOUR. I love how Clarke relates the events of over 200 years ago to the present day, too, so that we get 'fake news' during the Revolution.

I'm with Stephen Clarke in that I think Louis XVI was well-intentioned but weak, and Marie Antoinette - who did not say 'Let them eat cake' - was acting a role and then acting up in the face of public opposition, so I appreciate the redistribution of blame presented here. Clarke brilliantly compares Louis to the CEO of a large company, inherited from his father, who sees that his workers are being treated unfairly and tries to make changes, but is blocked by the board of directors, who have their own interests. Who would really want to destroy that company - the owner, or those seeking to take over?

To me, the French Revolution was nothing but an extremely violent extended battle of the egos, in which men like Danton, Robespierre and Marat did away with the possibility of a constitutional monarchy in order to gain power for themselves, only to have the fear and suspicion of the Revolution turn on them. Anyone who romanticises the thousands of French men and women murdered in the name of liberty, equality and fraternity after the fall of the Bastille needs to either read this book or be slapped upside the head with the hardback edition. Incroyable. ( )