I picked this book up at a local bookstore because it was cheap at £3 and and I don't think I know enough about France.
The question is pretty well summed up in the title of this post. I'm wondering how reliable the author is in terms of getting the facts right. Of course it would be silly to assume there will be no bias at all in the book, but I'd like to know whether or not it is so biased as to take away from the actual facts of history.
Lucien Romier was an actual historian who had specialized in his youth in 16th century France, and he published several award-winning scholarly books on the French Wars of Religion. He quit academia after WW1, turned to journalism and politics, publishing popular books about economy and world affairs. He joined the Vichy government after 1940, enjoying a close relationship with Pétain. However, he fell out of favour with the regime and was about to be arrested by the Germans when he died in January 1944 from a heart attack. Romier left behind a book in draft form that was published in 1948 as L'ancienne France, des origines à la Révolution. British historian Alfred Leslie Rowse loved it so much that he contacted Romier's widow to have it translated. She gave him the draft, and Rowse not only translated it, but corrected it, deciphered the notes (there was material up to 1885) and eventually wrote himself the three final chapters, extending the book up to WW2 (Rowse does not mention the part played by Romier in the collaboration).
So: it's an old book, written by someone who had been out of academia for two decades. Romier had been a serious historian so we can expect that he got the general flow of events and the dates right, but the book was informed on whatever was the consensus in the 1920s, or even earlier. For instance, his portrayal of Louis XI - ugly, cruel, diabolical, traitorous - seems basically derived from the "black legend" created by the king's enemies after his death, and made popular by 19th century novels, and it does not take into account the more recent and thoughtful historiography available at the time (like the biography by Pierre Champion published in 1928). And some of the obvious things are just not there: there's not a single mention of slavery in French colonies. In any case, it's an example of the outmoded style of grand roman national (great national narrative) popular in France since the 19th century, and it's full of cringeworthy stuff.
The book is interesting for people studying how French history was told in the past, but not useful to learn history itself.