However, Newitt ably links his account with a central theme. As he demonstrates, the history of a dynasty is that of the struggle of the monarchical principle with the competing forces within society that ultimately found expression in republicanism, as well as, more consistently, with the internal problems that affected any monarchical system. The hereditary principle did not guarantee ability, a point that emerges frequently in Newitt’s book. On the other hand, dynasticism was an important guarantee of independence from Spain, and therefore of the integrity of the state. This is an issue that can be overlooked today, but in societies that were reverential to the past and referential of it, legitimacy was in particular a matter of dynastic continuity. This helped monarchy to reinvent itself – it served a purpose. Indeed, it was the wider perspective that was therefore important. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the challenges to the position of monarchs was largely from religious dissidence, which was the background to ideas of tyrannicide. The context was very different by the nineteenth century, and the secular challenge of radical republicanism in Portugal is particularly apparent in this account. Newitt’s coverage of the nineteenth century is particularly good. The sole criticism is that a developed comparative dimension would help, and not least with other monarchies that succumbed in the early twentieth century without the shock of defeat in World War One, notably Spain. Indeed, to a degree, Newitt offers a political history of nineteenthcentury Portugal. The problems caused by division in the royal family are handled well. They are an echo of those in Spain, and also of the division in France between branches of the Bourbon family. It is also worth considering continuities in both Portuguese and Brazilian history. In particular, having parted with dynastic monarchy, they turned eventually to dictatorial or at least authoritarian leaders, as, indeed, in other countries, did many former monarchies. Thus, dynastic monarchy might be seen as anachronistic because it was dynastic and not a monarchy. In the case of Salazar in Portugal there was a succession to a new leader, which was what Franco also sought in Spain. The ability of Newitt’s book to encourage such reflections is a measure of its value. The book is ably written with many pertinent quotations. The colour illustrations further lift the text, and the typeface is attractive. Thoroughly recommended.

中文翻译：

---

书评：雷德·佩恩：拿破仑时代的战争与外交：查尔斯·斯图尔特爵士、卡斯尔雷与欧洲的均势

然而，纽伊特巧妙地将他的帐户与一个中心主题联系起来。正如他所证明的那样，王朝的历史是君主制原则与社会内部竞争力量的斗争，这些力量最终在共和主义中得到体现，以及更一致地与影响任何君主制度的内部问题的斗争。遗传原则并不能保证能力，这一点在纽伊特的书中经常出现。另一方面，王朝制度是从西班牙独立的重要保证，因此是国家完整性的重要保证。这是一个今天可以忽略的问题，但在崇敬过去并参考过去的社会中，合法性尤其是一个王朝连续性的问题。这有助于君主制自我重塑——它达到了一个目的。确实，因此，重要的是更广阔的视野。16、17世纪，君主地位的挑战主要来自宗教异见，这是暴政思想的产生背景。到了 19 世纪，情况已经大不相同，葡萄牙激进共和主义的世俗挑战在这一描述中尤为明显。纽伊特对十九世纪的报道特别好。唯一的批评是，发达的比较维度会有所帮助，尤其是对 20 世纪初期在没有遭受第一次世界大战失败冲击的其他君主制国家，尤其是西班牙，会有所帮助。事实上，在某种程度上，纽伊特提供了 19 世纪葡萄牙的政治历史。王室分裂造成的问题处理得很好。它们是西班牙人的回声，也是法国波旁家族分支之间的分裂。葡萄牙和巴西历史的连续性也值得考虑。特别是，在与王朝君主制分开后，他们最终转向了独裁或至少是专制的领导人，事实上，在其他国家，许多前君主制也是如此。因此，王朝君主制可能被视为不合时宜，因为它是王朝而非君主制。以葡萄牙的萨拉查为例，有一位新领导人的继任者，这也是佛朗哥在西班牙所寻求的。纽伊特的书鼓励这种反思的能力是衡量其价值的标准。这本书写得很好，有很多中肯的引文。彩色插图进一步提升了文字，字体也很有吸引力。彻底推荐。以及法国波旁家族分支之间的分裂。葡萄牙和巴西历史的连续性也值得考虑。特别是，在与王朝君主制分开后，他们最终转向了独裁或至少是专制的领导人，事实上，在其他国家，许多前君主制也是如此。因此，王朝君主制可能被视为不合时宜，因为它是王朝而非君主制。以葡萄牙的萨拉查为例，有一位新领导人的继任者，这也是佛朗哥在西班牙所寻求的。纽伊特的书鼓励这种反思的能力是衡量其价值的标准。这本书写得很好，有很多中肯的引文。彩色插图进一步提升了文字，字体也很有吸引力。彻底推荐。以及法国波旁家族分支之间的分裂。葡萄牙和巴西历史的连续性也值得考虑。特别是，在与王朝君主制分开后，他们最终转向了独裁或至少是专制的领导人，事实上，在其他国家，许多前君主制也是如此。因此，王朝君主制可能被视为不合时宜，因为它是王朝而非君主制。以葡萄牙的萨拉查为例，有一位新领导人的继任者，这也是佛朗哥在西班牙所寻求的。纽伊特的书鼓励这种反思的能力是衡量其价值的标准。这本书写得很好，有很多中肯的引文。彩色插图进一步提升了文字，字体也很有吸引力。彻底推荐。