Five years ago I gave to Unz's posters more credit than I give to them now. One topic over there was the French Revolution in its later phases. I bought and (eventually) read Schama Citizens, which I liked. Unz himself is back, to discuss the Revolution's early phase. Specifically: the Duck of Orleans' part in it (RIP Gene).
Credit where due: the Duck did own a large part in the King's ouster, larger than Schama in 1989 allowed. As late as 1968, no less an historian as Durant admitted as much. Schama downplayed this - but without refuting this. It was just a "Conspiracy Theory", floated by the likes of Nesta Webster. This has aroused Unz's suspicion.
Let's pretend for now that Webster was nuts and that Durant was credulous. Say we ignore the Masons, the Templars, the Zionists and the Lizardfolk. We are - still - left with an ambitious prince. Might it not be of historical interest, of Mirror For Princes interest; that we know when a prince aims to be King? Might historians at least consider that an attempted palace coup ran away from the plotters as to become a Revolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment