From Rome to London and America the book breaks down the most disliked and scandalous leaders but this book is much more than that it gives historical context comparisons especially between Trump Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson I love historical books on anything in this certainly satisfied and taught me everything I didn’t even know I wanted to know it was very entertaining and a book I highly recommend. It even tells about the history of 10 Downing St. a history I’ve never read anywhere before but I thought I said it has lots more than just scandalous leaders. I want to thank pennant sword history and Net Galley for my free arc copy please forgive any mistakes as I am blind and dictate my review.

The problem with writing a book called Scandalous Leadership which covers every UK Prime Minister and American President is that many, if not most, of them have not done anything scandalous. It's pretty easy to come up with comments insulting to each of them, especially when those you quote are their political opponents, but that does not in any way denote scandal.

Even taken as a book covering a short biography of each Prime Minister and President, this does not work. There are mistakes throughout ( eg In God We Trust is the motto of the US, not Massachussetts, as claimed in the chapter on JFK) and the author contradicts himself throughout (eg the chapter on Major - "His tentative peace feelers to the IRA didn't work and aroused the anger of Unionists and Middle England" followed by the chapter on Blair - "Peace in Northern Ireland was the work of John Major, but Tony Blair took credit for it.")

The bibliography shows a limited amount of second hand research (at best) and mostly seems to be reading other books which do the same thing, only better in most cases. To be perfectly honest, it reads more like all the information was found on Wikipedia, although even that would have to be cut down to try and fit the author's narrative (and is possibly unfair to Wiki). He seems to be trying to show that all political leaders have always been terrible - the only thing he downplays as a scandal is Partygate which probably gives an idea of what he's trying to do - and twists anything he can to fit this narrative. His comments are trite and include far too many exclamation marks.

One to avoid.

Thanks to NetGalley for the advance copy in return for an honest review.
#ScandalousLeadership #NetGalley

Honestly, I was expecting something different. The cover and the description led me to believe I would find a book entirely focused on public scandals related to political figures and their relationships with the press. Instead, the book is a collection of biographies of US presidents and British PMs: charming, humorously written and not boring - but very different from what I anticipated. Had I paid money to read this volume, I would have been displeased.

On a different note, I'd question the author's decision to include contemporary political figures in his review (the latest ones examined are Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, to give an idea): the historian's impartiality inevitably gives way to personal evaluations related to very recent events, and I can easily imagine that this choice might irritate readers with differing political views. For the sake of peace, I might have stopped the narration around the Thatcher era or thereabouts - but this is me, of course.

This is probably the worst history book I've ever read.
Firstly, it is so full of factual errors that the reader cannot trust anything in it. The notorious 'It was The Sun wot won it' headline was prompted by John Major's 1992 win over Kinnock not Margaret Thatcher's as the book claims.
Harold Wilson was still alive in 1985.
The BBC was not a corporation when it started in 1922.
The Victorian journal Judy was not a spin-off of Punch.
George I famously had two mistresses, not one.
Chamberlain did not deliver his 'piece of paper ' speech in Downing Street.
Reagan was not 76 in 1989, he was 78.
The "dead sheep " comment about Geoffrey Howe was made by Denis Healey in the Seventies. It was not made about Howe"s genuinely savage 1990 resignation speech.
These are just some of the many mistakes the books makes.
Secondly, author M.J. Trow wrecks the narrative by inserting his barmy Blimpish opinions on everything from the supposed evils of woke culture to modern society's "obsession" with racism all over the place, totally skewering the narrative.
Trow's assessment of modern politics is all over the place. According to him, the notion of prosecuting people for hate crimes is "childish". John Major's government is discussed without any reference to sleaze or Maastricht! Trow denies Blair any credit at all for peace in Northern Ireland. He has clearly forgotten about the Good Friday Agreement.
The end result is like an extended rant rant from Viz character, Major Misunderstanding.
But as a history book, this is completely worthless.