The book opens with an approximately page-and-a-half long apologetic section that goes a long way towards convincing the reader that perhaps, if the author feels that their own work is so appalling, one shouldn't read it at all. For instance, he says:
Charles Boden said:
Quite certainly, most will not believe in these events. Many will shun them, some might even attempt to ridicule them, and in our eternal disbelief yet others will disregard them believing in the scientific knowledge of their own scepticism or in the blind interpretation of the dogmas and doctrines of their own religious faith.
Now, the problem with a quote like this one is that, not only does it insult nearly everyone on the spectrum between strong skeptic and strong theist, but it also tells the reader what one should think of the book before the book has even really begun. The reader might be forgiven for taking umbrage and ceasing to read it based on the second paragraph alone. Don't give up though, gentle reader, there's more!
Boden goes on to further confuse the reader by stating that his anecdotes are not a source of pride, but sadness, and somehow also a source of comfort at the same time, and that his reason for writing the story is "not to convince, but to share." Considering the fact that he's managed to insult 2/3rds of his audience and tell the other 1/3rd what they should think of his work, one wonders who he intended to "share" this with. He then goes on to make quite an interesting statement:
Charles Boden said:
The historical significance of what is contained within this story, rather than a factor that might help to evidence it, will on the contrary most probably be used as an argument against it.
How remarkably prescient! In case the prose is a bit too clumsy for you, he is saying that history, rather than backing his assertions, will be more likely to be used as evidence that his assertions are incorrect. If this is Mr. Boden's belief, one wonders why he didn't amend his assertions in order to better match with recorded history? And since he didn't amend his assertions, is it his claim that recorded history is wrong, and his assertions are correct? Perhaps he'd have been better served by categorizing his work as fiction rather than fact, if he believes that it contradicts known history.
After the Apologia, Mr. Boden goes on to wax philosophical about the wonder of the universe. Hidden within the purplest of prose is this comment:
Charles Boden said:
...to this day, science and its scientists have failed to answer our most basic and fundamental questions, the questions that have always baffled humankind: Why are we here? What is the true purpose of our existence? Where do we come from and where are we headed to?
Mr. Boden's disappointment with science appears to be based on his basic misunderstanding of what types of questions science addresses. The majority of his questions are a matter of philosophy and, being unfalsifiable, are not in the purview of science at all. However, science has addressed the question "Where do we come from?" quite extensively with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Science has not failed to answer the other questions, but rather, has never addressed them at all, since they are not the type of questions that are answerable with scientific study. Mr. Boden finishes off this section by imagining what primitive man thought about things.
Finally, the book actually begins in the middle of page 3 with some autobiographical data about Mr. Boden and the lyrics of
Charlie is my Darling, which was not popularized until after Bonnie Prince Charlie's death. The book goes on to share some of Mr. Boden's "visions" that he has interpreted to be past-life data. He asks:
Charles Boden said:
How can a child recall lives that could not possibly have been his own?
To which I, the reviewer, answer, "He can't." However, a child can be fed information and encouraged to tell tales in much the same fashion that Hans the Clever Horse was taught to "count". To believe that every fantastic tale that a child tells is evidence of a past life is to discount the possibilities and wonder of the human imagination. Mr. Boden inserts some references to poorly-crafted and poorly-reviewed pseudoscientific studies in order to bolster his war against the human imagination and prop up his own dearly held belief that he's reincarnated from royalty. Mr. Boden then goes on to tell some anecdotes about his early childhood and family history that I won't recount.
Mr. Boden doesn't get to historical content until Chapter 2, in which he begins to tell the tale of the birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie. The historical portion of the text isn't as poorly written as the personal and philosophical portions, and one wishes that Mr. Boden had either written a book about history or an autobiography without attempting to conflate the two. However, his prose does sometimes lead the reader into incorrect assumptions. For instance, this:
Charles Boden said:
Elizabeth was considered a "bastard" daughter of King Henry VIII, as she was born of the marriage of King Henry with his second wife, Anne Boleyn, after his divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, which had not been authorized by the Roman Catholic church and Pope...
It leads the reader to believe that this lack of authorization from the Church was the cause of Elizabeth's status as a bastard, does it not? However, nothing could be further from the truth. The real reason that Elizabeth was considered a bastard is because of the
Second Act of Succession of 1536, which had nothing to do with what the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope thought about Henry the VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn, but rather, was Henry's own idea to protect the succession for potential children from his third marriage to Jane Seymour. As a matter of fact, the First Act of Succession of 1534 declared his first child from his first marriage a bastard as well, and the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope
did approve of that marriage, and
strongly objected to the First Act of Succession.
See how easily bad prose can lead a reader to incorrect conclusions? Although I was unable to review much of the historical content of
Descendant of Kings due to the fact that it was only an 8 page preview and at least three of those were wasted in unnecessary apologia and philosophizing, the bit about Elizabeth I's bastardy makes me fear for the worst in regards to the historical content throughout the entire tome. As a reviewer, I wasn't expecting much from
Descendant of Kings, and, all in all, I can't say I'm disappointed.
