What do you think?
Rate this book
The Stranger Prince
The Stranger Prince (see picture above)
592 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1937
1 person is currently reading
78 people want to read
About the author
Margaret Irwin
59 books42 followersBorn in 1899 and educated at Oxford, Irwin was recognized as a novelist of well-researched and occasionally heart-breaking historical fiction. She is best known for her trilogy about Elizabeth I: Young Bess, Elizabeth Captive Princess, and Elizabeth and the Prince of Spain. Young Bess was made into a movie starring Jean Simmons.
Irwin also wrote passionately about the English Civil War, causing generations to fall in love with the ill-fated but charismatic Earl of Montrose.
Irwin also wrote passionately about the English Civil War, causing generations to fall in love with the ill-fated but charismatic Earl of Montrose.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 12, 2015
This book was trying, which it shouldn't have been in view of its subject matter and hero: a 17th century royal notorious as a soldier, admiral, scientist, artist, inventor, privateer, and the good Lord knows what else, holding titles in both the German principality he came from and from the English peerage, and as if that weren't enough, also had good looks on top of all that abundance of talents.
So, all ingredients are there for concocting an excellent historical novel based on his life, right? Nobody could make a mess of it with that stupendous story material, right? A handsome and multi-talented man like that is guaranteed to make a swoon-worthy literary character and can't fail to engage, right? Yet, oddly that happens with this novel.
The issue, to me, is Margaret Irwin herself and not the historical figure of Prince Rupert of the Rhine. Mrs Irwin can string two sentences together prettily, but she cannot weave a plot and tell a story. This novel is an example of the literary practice of simply telling the raw facts of a person's life as they're known from historical records, yet being unable to make use of them to develop a plot and tell a story about that person. And this is what's so frustrating about this novel: the recitation of facts, more facts and even more facts, the show and not tell passages, the meandering narration, and the shallowness of the characters. It's as if the author doesn't know what to do with the availabe facts from history, and just went for simply telling them in an endless succession with lovely prose not devoid of the occasional purple tinge. And she doesn't even tell it in a manner that'd be attractive to read. Let's look at the first chapter: the book opens not with Rupert but with a scolding from his mother to his younger sister, with the author getting the reader into said sister's head first, then moving to a scene with the siblings to introduce Rupert only briefly with a flash of hot temper, then coming back to show us what's in the mother's head and through her goes back in time to Rupert's birth, and from that on proceeds to tell his life's ups and downs monotonously.
The chapter contains in a nutshell all the issues I have with the rest of the book: firstly, the characterisation is annoying, more so with the main character lending his name to the novel. True, Rupert had a fiery temper, but the way Irwin portrays him, he seems to have only two emotions on him, one of them hot-headedness and both extreme, which makes for a bipolar characterisation. Secondly, she gives too much space to other characters when it'd have to be Rupert there and when she includes people who were significant in his life, such as Mary Villiers, she embarks on long and loving show-and-not-tell passages describing facts that could be learnt from encyclopaedias or visiting the museum (or online in these days), emphasising thus the impression that she simply doesn't know what to do with his life's known anecdotes, throwing it all on the bowl to mix and expecting that to pass for a story. And thirdly, most frustrating of all, her writing unfolds like an avalanche: starts with a determined scene, and from then on it's non-stop till the last and predictably abrupt end, rolling down with hops and jumps along the slope; her chapters are extremely long, with few separations to take a break from reading without having to reread past passages because there's hardly pause points within each chapter, as they should have given the length of them (in my edition, the first chapter is over way over fifty pages), and she takes big time jumps even within one chapter, so years can pass by from one paragraph to the next, again reinforcing the impression that Irwin is reciting facts and not telling a story. At first, I'd assumed that as it was just the first part, this would improve later, but it continues the same throughout, improving somewhat in the part covering the English Civil War period.
It's a real pity that this was such a letdown, because I am very interested in Prince Rupert, and all else I've read of him I enjoyed a lot, and this novel being considered the best about him, my hopes were understandably high. Perhaps this will work best for those not so familiar with Rupert and his life, because as an "intro text" type of book this is adequate. But for those better acquainted with him, it mightn't be the best; it wasn't particularly good to me. If I'd wanted to read about the history of Rupert of the Rhine and wanted the facts of his life to be recited in my ear, I'd have chosen a biography, of which there are a few good ones out there. But I'd wanted a story, to feel the character come to life, to get a sense of time and place, to be immersed into the period and "live" through the narrative what the characters are living through.
So, all ingredients are there for concocting an excellent historical novel based on his life, right? Nobody could make a mess of it with that stupendous story material, right? A handsome and multi-talented man like that is guaranteed to make a swoon-worthy literary character and can't fail to engage, right? Yet, oddly that happens with this novel.
The issue, to me, is Margaret Irwin herself and not the historical figure of Prince Rupert of the Rhine. Mrs Irwin can string two sentences together prettily, but she cannot weave a plot and tell a story. This novel is an example of the literary practice of simply telling the raw facts of a person's life as they're known from historical records, yet being unable to make use of them to develop a plot and tell a story about that person. And this is what's so frustrating about this novel: the recitation of facts, more facts and even more facts, the show and not tell passages, the meandering narration, and the shallowness of the characters. It's as if the author doesn't know what to do with the availabe facts from history, and just went for simply telling them in an endless succession with lovely prose not devoid of the occasional purple tinge. And she doesn't even tell it in a manner that'd be attractive to read. Let's look at the first chapter: the book opens not with Rupert but with a scolding from his mother to his younger sister, with the author getting the reader into said sister's head first, then moving to a scene with the siblings to introduce Rupert only briefly with a flash of hot temper, then coming back to show us what's in the mother's head and through her goes back in time to Rupert's birth, and from that on proceeds to tell his life's ups and downs monotonously.
The chapter contains in a nutshell all the issues I have with the rest of the book: firstly, the characterisation is annoying, more so with the main character lending his name to the novel. True, Rupert had a fiery temper, but the way Irwin portrays him, he seems to have only two emotions on him, one of them hot-headedness and both extreme, which makes for a bipolar characterisation. Secondly, she gives too much space to other characters when it'd have to be Rupert there and when she includes people who were significant in his life, such as Mary Villiers, she embarks on long and loving show-and-not-tell passages describing facts that could be learnt from encyclopaedias or visiting the museum (or online in these days), emphasising thus the impression that she simply doesn't know what to do with his life's known anecdotes, throwing it all on the bowl to mix and expecting that to pass for a story. And thirdly, most frustrating of all, her writing unfolds like an avalanche: starts with a determined scene, and from then on it's non-stop till the last and predictably abrupt end, rolling down with hops and jumps along the slope; her chapters are extremely long, with few separations to take a break from reading without having to reread past passages because there's hardly pause points within each chapter, as they should have given the length of them (in my edition, the first chapter is over way over fifty pages), and she takes big time jumps even within one chapter, so years can pass by from one paragraph to the next, again reinforcing the impression that Irwin is reciting facts and not telling a story. At first, I'd assumed that as it was just the first part, this would improve later, but it continues the same throughout, improving somewhat in the part covering the English Civil War period.
It's a real pity that this was such a letdown, because I am very interested in Prince Rupert, and all else I've read of him I enjoyed a lot, and this novel being considered the best about him, my hopes were understandably high. Perhaps this will work best for those not so familiar with Rupert and his life, because as an "intro text" type of book this is adequate. But for those better acquainted with him, it mightn't be the best; it wasn't particularly good to me. If I'd wanted to read about the history of Rupert of the Rhine and wanted the facts of his life to be recited in my ear, I'd have chosen a biography, of which there are a few good ones out there. But I'd wanted a story, to feel the character come to life, to get a sense of time and place, to be immersed into the period and "live" through the narrative what the characters are living through.
November 8, 2025
I saw a five-star review of this and a one-star review of this and I agreed with them both. I'm going with four stars, because the book pissed me off over and over and yet I liked it quite a bit.
It's a great story, and though she will try your patience, the author writes many amazing scenes, demonstrating a solid grasp of history, politics, the tactics and strategies of war, and the personalities of the various characters (real people) involved. Her writing tends toward the literary at all times, but when she's telling about a cavalry charge in a complex battle scene, the writing is remarkable.
The difficulty, the one that almost made me DNF about 1/3 in, is how her attention jumps from page to page, paragraph to paragraph, and even sentence to sentence. The focus is so scattered and diffuse that the reader has to scramble to keep up with the current topic. It sometimes feels like the novel is restarting again and again, as if everything before was prelude and throat-clearing, and now she's at last talking about the thing she really wanted to get to.
The thing is, I wanted to like it. So rather than DNF, I intentionally, consciously chose to let her tell the story in her distracted, shiny-object, ADHD, mind-wandering way, and though it was a challenge, the storytelling is so complete and satisfying in other ways I found myself really enjoying it.
Prince Rupert was the nephew of Charles I, and grew up on the continent, taking part in the unending wars there during the 17th century even as a teenager. He was well-liked, tall, capable, energetic, and war-like, literally raised to be a leader of men, and when he went to England, his aunt and uncle really took to him. When Parliament, with Puritan support, opposed the king and openly rebelled, Rupert was the king's best general. The story, as told here, was how Rupert was having great success and could have--and should have--won the war for him if only the king would have listened to him and not his detractors. There's a lot of useful history in here, though it feels like Margaret Irwin wanted to tell about Rupert more than what he did or what happened. Hard to say, TBH.
All in all--the author tells a great story and pens a fantastic novel despite having a sometimes frustrating style. I feel like that's fair. YMMV.
Recommended for readers looking to take a chance on books they've never heard of. You never know.
It's a great story, and though she will try your patience, the author writes many amazing scenes, demonstrating a solid grasp of history, politics, the tactics and strategies of war, and the personalities of the various characters (real people) involved. Her writing tends toward the literary at all times, but when she's telling about a cavalry charge in a complex battle scene, the writing is remarkable.
The difficulty, the one that almost made me DNF about 1/3 in, is how her attention jumps from page to page, paragraph to paragraph, and even sentence to sentence. The focus is so scattered and diffuse that the reader has to scramble to keep up with the current topic. It sometimes feels like the novel is restarting again and again, as if everything before was prelude and throat-clearing, and now she's at last talking about the thing she really wanted to get to.
The thing is, I wanted to like it. So rather than DNF, I intentionally, consciously chose to let her tell the story in her distracted, shiny-object, ADHD, mind-wandering way, and though it was a challenge, the storytelling is so complete and satisfying in other ways I found myself really enjoying it.
Prince Rupert was the nephew of Charles I, and grew up on the continent, taking part in the unending wars there during the 17th century even as a teenager. He was well-liked, tall, capable, energetic, and war-like, literally raised to be a leader of men, and when he went to England, his aunt and uncle really took to him. When Parliament, with Puritan support, opposed the king and openly rebelled, Rupert was the king's best general. The story, as told here, was how Rupert was having great success and could have--and should have--won the war for him if only the king would have listened to him and not his detractors. There's a lot of useful history in here, though it feels like Margaret Irwin wanted to tell about Rupert more than what he did or what happened. Hard to say, TBH.
All in all--the author tells a great story and pens a fantastic novel despite having a sometimes frustrating style. I feel like that's fair. YMMV.
Recommended for readers looking to take a chance on books they've never heard of. You never know.
November 7, 2013
A fun historical romp that mainly served to whet my appetite for reading other biographies of Prince Rupert and his contemporaries. Fascinating background information, but I want to know more about what happened next.
Want to read
April 22, 2010Through no fault of its own, I had to put this on the back burner for now. I'll get to it soon!
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews