BRAVE NEW WORLD

A review of Winston Churchill’s The New World (1956)

Part of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

(Rating 4 of 5)

                Churchill’s first volume, The Birth of Britain, covers thousands of years.  This second volume covers only a little over two centuries.  What a few centuries it was!  The book begins with the rise of Henry VII and the Tudor dynasty and ends with the fall of James II in the Glorious Revolution.  In this volume the English monarchy rises to its highest of heights achieving near absolute power.  The three great Tudors Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I were magnificent monarchs whose power went unquestioned.  Their feeble replacements, the Stuarts, would struggle to hold onto what they had inherited and the monarchy would fall to its lowest states with one king being executed and another dismissed.   Churchill captures all with magnificent style.  As I noted earlier the best part about reading Churchill’s work is you get to see how a famous historical figure views other historical events. 

               

Henry VII

The book begins with the aftermath of the War the Roses.  With his new crown, King Henry VII, picks up the pieces of the short-lived York dynasty and sets the foundations of a powerful monarchy.  During his reign Henry gave the reputation of being a something of a miser, but doing this help stabilize his regime.  Churchill notes that although he was nice famous as some of his European cousins his achievements were no less impressive.

“His achievement was massive and durable.  He built his power amid the ruins and ashes of his predecessors.  He fiercely and carefully gathered what seemed in those days a vast reserve of liquid wealth.  He trained a body of efficient servants.  He magnified the Crown without losing the cooperation of the Commons.  He identified prosperity with monarchy.  Among the princes of Renaissance Europe he is not surpassing achievement in fame by Louis XI of France or Ferdinand of Spain.” (pg.20)

                

                   When any historian writes about King Henry VIII they all follow the same trap.  What you talk about?  Henry VIII had a lot of legitimate achievements during his reign.  He set the foundation that would lead England on the road to become a modern state.  Yet, we think of Henry is hard not to go over the six wives.  Only the first three are important those marriages and how they ended change the road England would be on forever.  Churchill does a good job covering the reign despite his limited space. (After all he still has over two centuries to cover with only a couple hundred pages to do it.)

“Henry’s rule saw many advances in the growth and character of the English state, but it is a hideous blot upon his record that the rain should be widely remembered for its executions.  Two Queens, two of the King’s chief Ministers, a saintly Bishop, numerous abbots, monks and many ordinary folk who dared to resist the Royal will were put to death.  Almost every member of the nobility in royal blood ran perished on the scaffold at Henry’s command.  Roman Catholic and Calvinist alike were burned for heresy and religious treason.  These persecutions, inflicted in solemn manner by officers of the law, perhaps in the presence of the Counsel or even the King himself, form a brutal sequel to the bright promise of the Renaissance.  The sufferings of devout men and women upon the faggots, the use of torture, and the savage penalties imposed for even paltry crimes, stand in repellent contrasts the enlightened principles of humanism.  Get his subjects to not turn from Henry in loathing.  He succeeded in maintaining order amid the turmoil in Europe without Army or police, and he imposed on England a discipline which was not attained elsewhere.  A century of religious wars went by without Englishmen taking up arms to fight their fellow-countrymen for their faith.  We must credit Henry’s reign with weighing the basis of sea-power, with a revival of Parliamentary institutions, with the giving of the English Bible to the people, and above all with strengthening a popular monarchy under which the seating generations worked together for the greatness of England while France and Germany were wracked with internal strife.” (pg. 66)

               

Queen Elizabeth I

                     Like any good English patriot Churchill has a warm spot for the year 1588 the defeat of Spanish Armada.  It was an important victory from England, they were only all half an island against the great imperial power.  Arguably, the threat the Spanish represented was a greater threat to England as a threat Churchill himself faced in his own time.  Despite his feelings he doesn’t go overboard with the legend, as fun as it would be to tell the story of the smashing of the great Spanish fleet he realizes history does not always work like that.  Nevertheless, it was crowning achievement for Queen Elizabeth I.

“The English had not lost a single ship, and scarcely 100 men.  But their captains were disappointed.  For the last thirty years they believe themselves superior to their opponents.  They had now found themselves fighting a much bigger fleet than they had imagined the Spaniards could put the sea.  Their own ships have been sparingly equipped.  Their ammunition had run short at a critical moment.  The gunnery of the merchant vessels had proved poor and half the enemy’s fleet had got away.  There were no postings; they record their dissatisfactions.
“But to the English people as a whole the defeat of the Armada came as a miracle.  For 30 years the shadow of Spanish power had darkened the political scene.  A wave of religious emotion filled men’s minds.  One of the metals strike to commemorate the victory bears the inscription ‘Afflavit Deus et dissipantur’—‘ God blue and they were scattered.’” (pg. 102)

               

Spanish Armada 

As England was getting to its feet the world the Europeans knew was expanding.  The voyages of Columbus opened up to new continents that the people did not know existed.  This created opportunity for the Europeans to create colonies. For certain English subjects it represented the opportunity to begin the world anew.  For those who are proud of their Englishness but found England unbearable due to whatever corruption they viewed as inexcusable, such as the Puritans they no longer had to hang out in Holland.  They now had the opportunity to build their own version of England in the form of a colony.  In his previous work the English-speaking peoples they were just one people confined to one island, now they were many expanding across the globe.  It was this phenomenon that Churchill gives the books title.

                The first half of the book covers the English monarchy at its highest; in the second half we could see it at its lowest.  Queen Elizabeth I died without heir.  The crown of England passes to the King of Scotland.  King James VI becomes King James I and moved from Edinburgh to London.  Churchill had some fun poking fun at this joke of a dynasty in his last volume.  As the Stuarts come to England they do not get any smarter.  Churchill portrays these sovereigns as being out of touch with reality and not up to the task of governing England.

King James I

“James and his Parliaments grew more and more out of sympathy as the years went by.  The Tudors have been discrete in their use of the Royal Prerogative and had never put forward any general theory of government, but James saw himself as a schoolmaster of the whole island.” (pg. 120)

                Despite his flaws, I personally have some sympathy for King Charles I and it appears in the book that Churchill does as well.  I have always found Cromwell to be an utter hypocrite and his regime to be more tyrannical than any king ever dreamed of being.  While reading this book it seems Winston Churchill was of the same opinion.

King Charles I

Oliver Cromwell

“We must not be led by Victorian writers into regarding this triumph of the Ironsides end of Cromwell as a kind of victory for democracy and the Parliamentary system over Divine Right and Old World dreams.  It was the triumph of some twenty thousand resolute, ruthless, disciplined, military fanatics over all that England has ever willed or ever wished.  Long years in unceasing irritations were required to reverse it.  Thus the struggle, in which we have in these days so much sympathy in part, begun to bring about a constitutional and limited monarchy, had led only to autocracy of the sword.  The harsh, terrific, lightning – charged being, whose erratic, opportunist, self- centered course is laid bare upon the annals, was now master, in the next 12 years of the record of well – meant, puzzled plungings and surgings.” (pg. 212)

                Earlier in this book we see King Henry VIII sending everyone and anyone including his own ministers and two of his queens to the scaffold to have their heads cut off.  In a completely different turn of events a King of England is sent to his death in the very manner that his predecessor had imposed onto others.  Yet this King, who many fought against him under the banner of fighting against tyranny, would be viewed as a martyr for liberty.

“A strange destiny had engulfed this King of England.  None had resisted with more untimely stubbornness the movement of his age.  He had been in his heyday the convinced opponent of all we now call our Parliamentary liberties.  Yet as misfortunes crowd upon him he increasingly became the physical embodiment of the liberties and traditions of England.  His mistakes and wrong deeds had arisen not so much for personal cravings for arbitrary power as from the conception of kingship to which she was born it was along with the settled custom of the land.  In the end he stood against the Army which had destroyed all Parliamentary government, it was about to plunge England into a tyranny at once more irresistible and more petty than any seen before or since.” (pg. 216)

After the fall of the protectorate, Churchill tells the story of how the monarchy was restored.  The king in exile, Charles II, was simply invited back by his people and not retuning at the head of conquering army.  For a Stuart, King Charles II was not that bad of a ruler.  He was fairly competent, unlike his younger brother, the Duke of York, who would succeed him as king, ruling as James II.  Despite his historical importance Churchill tells the story of the Glorious Revolution very quickly.  I expected it would be more detailed considering the involvement of his famous ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough.

I found this book to be a great summary of two chaotic and messy centuries in the history of Great Britain.  It tells a story of a powerful dynasty that rises and dies off, a Scottish dynasty which unifies the kingdoms, and a civil war that tore the nations apart.  It is a brief and great read.

THE START OF BRITAIN

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Birth of Britain (1956)

Part I of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

         (Rating 4 of 5)

            I always find it fascinating to read the works of great historical figures.  Most of such work that I have read is autobiographical in nature: the historical figure discussing his own life and/or events that he had taken part.  This is a little different.  Here Winston Churchill is not talking about events that he took part in (at least not yet) he is instead discussing the history of his nation, people, and their legacy.  What it interesting is reading a historical figure of Churchill’s stature commenting on the historical figures of the past and critiquing on how they did. 

The history depicted in this volume is at very 100 college level. I did not learn anything new but again I am here to listen to Churchill’s take on these events rather than learning about the events themselves.  Churchill has a very traditional outlook on past historical events he does not challenge the traditional narrative.  He does tend to take some time explaining the importance of Magna Carta and tackles some of the charges against King Richard III.  The books focus is rather broad but then it has to be.  It covers everything from prehistory to King Henry VII establishing the Tudor dynasty of England.

Churchill takes the classical view that the Roman Empire was the height of Western Civilization and nothing to the coming of the Enlightenment could equal its grandeur.  Churchill points out numerous technological advantages the Roman Britons had that their descendants would not for over a millennia and a half, such as running water.  I was surprised with the amount of time he dedicated to Roman Britain that he just brushed over Constantine, who had made his bid to rule the Roman world in Britannia.  His little made up example of a Roman Briton waking up in modern (1939) Britain is quite amusing.      

“If a native of Chester in Roman Britain could wake up today he would find laws which were the direct fulfillment of many of those he had known.  He would find in every village temples and priests of the new creed which in his day was winning victories everywhere.  Indeed the facilities for Christian worship would appear to him to be far in excess of the number of devotees.  Not without pride would he notice that his children were compelled to learn Latin if they wished to enter the most famous universities.  He might encounter some difficulties in the pronunciation. He would find in the public libraries many of the masterpieces of ancient literature, printed on uncomely cheap paper and in great numbers.  He would find a settled government and the sense of belonging to a world-wide empire.  He could drink and bathe in the waters of Bath or if this were to far he would find vapor baths and toilet conveniences in every city.  He would find all his own problems of currency, land tenure, public morals and decorum presented in a somewhat different aspect, but still in lively dispute.  He would have the same sense of belonging to a society which was threatened, and to an imperial rule that had passed its prime.” (pg. 31)

          

Civilization high point, Rome

            Moving on from the Romans to Anglo-Saxon England.  Churchill covers the various little Kingdoms that quarrel with each other and ultimately form into England.  He discusses figures that he admires such as King Alfred, who had to fight off numerous Viking invasions of England. Churchill also credits Alfred for being, what Churchill considers to be, the founder of the English Navy. 

            The Anglo-Saxon era comes to crashing end with the most important event in English history in the last thousand years: the Norman Conquest.  Winston Churchill is very important to the history of England, but even he would have to say however that William the Conqueror is the most important.  I in writing this review in English and you using English to talk to your friends give evidence the Norman Conquest happened.  As in the influx of French words into the language that would turn Old English to Middle English, the ancestor of the language we speak today. England would become more main land European than Scandinavian.  William would also from a new type of feudalism that would keep fiefs small and allow no one powerful baron to challenge him.  From Churchill’s perspective it was William’s setup however that would ultimately allow freedom to flourish. 

    

“In the Norman settlement lay the germ of constitutional opposition, with the effect if not the design of controlling the Government, not breaking it up. The seat of potential opposition was found in the counties, among the smaller nobility and their untitled descendants, Justices of the Peace and the knights of the shire.  They were naturally for the Crown and a quite life.  Hence after centuries they rallied to the Tudor sovereigns; and in another age to the Parliament against the Crown itself.  Whatever else changed they were always there.  And the reason why they were there is that William found the old West Saxon organization, which they alone could administer, exceedingly convenient.  He did not mean to be treated as he had treated the King of France.  He had seen, and profited by seeing, the mischief of a country divided into great provinces.  The little provinces of England, with the King’s officers at the head of each, gave him exactly the balance of power he needed for all the proposes of law and finance, but were at the same time incapable of rebellion as individual units.” (pg.28)

            

Norman invasion 

               When going over the early Plantagenets I found points of disagreement with Mr. Churchill.  First, I think there is no historical figure more overrated the Richard the Lionheart.  Richard was an absentee king who spent more time crusading badly than he spent in England, where he was for less than a year of his reign.  Churchill praises this guy to no end.  Second, is with Magna Carta, another event I find completely overrated, a reactionary document that was nullified the next day, and praised for generations afterward.  It was done to undermine King John, who I find to have been a better king than his brother and due the circumstances of the events of his reign I find to have a sympathetic figure.  I think John was just trying to do his job. Churchill sees John as useful because his flaws led to constitutional developments that made his reign important to history.

One of the most overrated historical figures ever, but Churchill's hero

“In the thirteenth-century magnate understood little and cared less for popular liberties or Parliamentary democracy, they had all the same laid hold on a principle which was to be of prime importance for the future development of English society and English institutions.  Throughout the document it is implied that here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break.  The reaffirmation of supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magan Carta; and this alone justifies the respect that men have held it.  The reign of Henry II, according to the most respected authorities, initiates the rule of law.  But the work was of yet incomplete: the Crown was still above the law; the legal system which Henry had created could become, as John showed, an instrument of oppression.” (pg.188)

            

            The middle Plantagenets—the three Edwards—Churchill considers the formation of the early Parliaments to be the most important achievements of these reigns.  Edward I for establishing and using it for lawmaking, and Edward III for making sure that the House of Commons existed. 

            In these chapters I found myself disappointed that Churchill never gives us an explanation to exactly why King Edward Longshanks is called “Edward I” despite the fact that there were three kings named Edward before him and one of them he was named after.  Churchill never seems to notice; maybe he was embarrassed that the traditional historians of his nation have trouble counting once they get up to “3.”

Why is he "Edward I"

“Naturally the Commons stood in awe of the Crown.  There was no long tradition of authority behind them.  The assertions of the royal prerogative authority in the days of Edward I still echoed in their minds, and there was no suggestion that either they or Parliament as a whole had any right to control or interfere in matters of administration and government.  They were summoned to endorse political settlements reached only in violence, to vote money and to vote grievances, but the permanent acceptance of Parliament as an essential part of the machinery of government and the Commons as its vital foundation is the lasting work of the fourteenth century.” (Pg. 263)

          

Edward III who established the Houses of Parliament 

          Toward the end of the book we run through the War of the Roses and get to the fall of the last Plantagenet King, Richard III, toppled by Henry Tudor.  A lot has been said about King Richard III he has his own society that exists to this day.  (I once wrote a bit of science fiction and had an editor who happened to be a member of this group.) Churchill takes the traditional position that Richard killed his nephews after usurping the crown of Edward V.  Yet, Churchill acknowledges some of things Richard is accused of are absurd.   

“Not only is every possible crime attributed by More to Richard, and some impossible ones, but he is presented as a physical monster, crook backed and withered of arm.  No one in his lifetime seems to have remarked these deformities, but they are now very familiar to us through Shakespeare’s play.  Needless to say, as soon as the Tudor dynasty was laid to rest defenders or Richard fell to work, and they have been increasingly busy ever since.” (pg. 354)

Richard III, guilty but not of everything

The first volume of Churchill’s English Peoples series covers a very broad scope, but it lets you know Churchill’s view on many subjects of his nation’s past from prehistory to 1485, in what Western historians refer to as the beginning of the modern period.

  

FROM LOATHED LIAR TO REVERED ELDER STATESMAN

A review of Kasey S. Pipes’s After the Fall: The Remarkable Comeback of Richard Nixon (2019)

(Rating 4 of 5)

                  In addition to writing my book reviews on this blog, I will afterwards publish copies on Amazon.com and Goodreads.com.  The difference of course is those copies of my reviews don’t come with pictures and video links.  This July I was contacted by Jennifer Duplessie of Regnery Publishing. She had seen my review of Conrad Black's A Life in Full: Richard M. Nixon and wanted to know if I would like to have a new book to review and offered this one to me for free on the condition that I review it.  I then googled Regnery Publishing to see what they are all about was and was very amused to learn that they were a right-wing publishing company that produces a lot of conservative- leaning  works from Republican Party officials and right-wing commentators.  I said I was amused because they clearly had no idea what my politics were.  Just because I like someone’s biographical work does not mean I would agree with them on all their political positions or even most of them.  But hey, free is free and I might enjoy reading something written by the other side and taking it apart.  So I said "yes" and received it in the mail a week later.  However I was still slogging through Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs (reviews on that to follow) so was unable to get to it right away. 

                  I began reading this book two weeks ago, reading a chapter or two a day.  I have to say I was really glad I did.  It is actually a very good book.  It offers a view into a period of the life of President Richard M Nixon that is not often covered.  Richard Nixon’s political career and presidency is arguably one of the most studied in the 20^th century.  The only President of the United States who is forced to resign.  The resignation and helicopter trip that the Nixons took after being escorted by his successor President Gerald Ford and First Lady Betty Ford is usually the end of the story.  The pardon is spoken of but mostly in passing.  Traditionally the narrative ends with Nixon waving goodbye.  In this book that is where the story begins: a disgraced President beginning to look for his road to redemption. 

                   Pipes ‘s writes with a smooth narrative that is easy to follow and understand.  The book is broken down to chapters with the first third dedicated to Nixon crawling back into the public consciousness with a series of carefully placed moves that allows him to slowly convince the American public to give him another try. 

                  Before he would begin his public rehabilitation he would first have to survive.  Shortly after his resignation Nixon had a health scare that Pipes’s shows nearly killed him and did causing great financial damage as he had no health insurance at the time.  This would add to President Nixon’s financial desperation which would be part of the later motivational fuel to get himself reestablished.  Now this particular part of Nixon’s life I had read about before as it was covered in Bob Woodward’s Shadow.  

Nixon in his post presidential office

                  Then we arrive at the Frost/Nixon interview.  These were a mixed back for Nixon.  It did give him an opportunity to tell his side of the story and it was the first attempt to go public again trying to shape the historical narrative of his presidency. Pipes writes that Nixon was a tad bit ill-prepared for the questions on Watergate.   While the Frost/Nixon interviews were being done, Pipes explains Nixon had recently been working on his memoirs and he had just gotten to Watergate.  He was now re-exploring those memories going over the materials that led to his downfall.   Therefore he was not as well versed in everything that was encompassed by Watergate as Frost was.  This leading into his stumbled statement of “when the president does it that means not illegal.”

                  Despite its flaws in the interview that he gave David Frost the exposure would start Nixon on his trajectory toward recovery.  He would go on to write nine books, give more interviews, and become a foreign policy adviser for several administrations, not limited to his own party, up until his death. 

Nixon returns with two other former Presidents to see President Reagan

                 James Buchanan, who when he left office in 1861 did so with the country being torn in two, in an effort to redeem himself in the public eye wrote and published his memoirs establishing a precedent that most future former presidents would follow.  When Herbert Hoover left office in 1933 with the country in the middle of a severe economic depression, in an effort to redeem his image he would establish the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.  He was the first president to do such a thing who would then be followed by all subsequent presidents.  Now Nixon forced to resign in 1974 was going to create a new type of post-presidency that would be mimicked by his successors.

James Buchanan

Herbert Hoover

“In fact, in the first ten years following Watergate, Nixon had done more than just survive as a former president—he had unknowingly established a template for future ex-presidents to follow.   Before Nixon, former presidents in the modern era mostly stayed behind the scenes, Truman had returned to Missouri and Ike split his time between his farm in Gettysburg and Gettysburg and summers in Palm Springs.  Neither of them made many public appearances or waded into public issues.
             “But Nixon, largely because he wanted to rehabilitate his name—and in any case was never one for retirement—chose a different path.  He made money from delivering speeches and writing books.  He gave interviews with the media in which he tried to shape public opinion on important national issues.  He became something of an elder statesman.  The Nixon template is the template used by former presidents to this day.” (p.170)

                 Pipes describes a former president, who is always thinking of history’s judgment, and is working to make sure that the narrative that its very minimum would give him a fair shake.  It was a virtual guarantee that his presidency was to be studied he wanted to make sure that it was going to be studied in all its aspects and he would try to influence this by befriending and is sometimes recruiting historians to take up his cause.

“The former president went out of his way to encourage any historian he didn’t think was a liberal.  One of his favorites, a former Dole Senate staffer named Richard Norton Smith, burst onto the scene in the 1980s with a biography on Thomas E. Dewey that became a finalist for the Pulitzer.  Nixon would write to Smith and compliment him as an ‘honest historian.’ It’s a telling remark that demonstrates how Nixon viewed the rest of Smith’s colleagues.” (p.179)

Nixon would even go so far not only to recruit a historian by the name of Jonathan Aitken , personally edit his work for him, and then go off and try to pitch the manuscript to various publishers.  This was a hard sell because of its clear bias.  There was one publisher willing to help him out.  Any criticism I do have of this work by Pipes is right here.  For this is a little bit of shameless promotion because the publisher of this book, Regnery, is the publisher that would ultimately pick Nixon’s biography written by his chosen biographer.  Talk about being part of your own story!

“Nixon had feared that a book favorable to him could not win a contract in New York.  So he planned accordingly.  Having the book published was more important to Nixon than who published it.  He urged Aitken to pitch his book to Regnery, the conservative publishing house in Washington.  Aitken did so and found success.” (p. 245)

My favorite part about the book is how Pipes shows Nixon’s relationships with the five presidents who followed him into the White House.  Nixon was still underground when Ford was in office; he actively worked to replace Carter; was a semi-formal advisor to Reagan until they broke over arms reduction; was cool to Bush; and surprisingly he was very warm with Clinton.  The Clinton one is the most surprising, but in some ways understandable both presidents were students of history and could see past political differences.  

Bill Clinton with an unlikely mentor 

The only other thing that I felt was missing from this book was there was no mention of President Nixon acting as the arbitrator to settle a strike of professional umpires union against Major League Baseball.  The fact that those in power baseball, which is America's past time, felt that he was the person to turn to help resolve one of their most important issues of the day I think is a major statement about how President Nixon was now viewed by the public.

Scene from Nixon funeral

             In the end I do strongly recommend this book is a fascinating study and a new look at one of the 20^th century’s most important political figures facing a unique challenge and rising to that challenge with great success.  President Nixon’s career is one of peaks and valleys and thanks to his tireless efforts he assured for himself that when he died he did so on top of a peak.  Now that I read the book I enjoyed it to the point where I regret that I did not get to it right away as it was given to me by the publisher.  However with holidays only weeks away and you are struggling gift idea for that history buff in your life this might be a good one. 

{YouTube videos from CBS Network and 2achselhaare}

Game of Thrones is Over So Who was Actually a King or a Queen

This is for people who have seen the series Game of Thrones in its entirety.  For those of you who did not this is your only warning…Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers.

So the hit series Game of Thrones has come to an end and the fans are up in arms to the point one starts to question if they actually liked the show.  I have to admit the end was kind of disappointing.  I thought it was either going to be Jon kills Daenerys and takes the Iron Throne to rule as King Aegon VI returning the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros to their glory days or Daenerys was going to kill Jon and rule as a Queen of the Kingdom of Ashes.  The first is the ending I wanted but the second I thought we were going to get and deserved.   Of course I thought when Ned Stark went to the scaffold I was about to witness a dramatic rescue scene.   

The ending we got something I was completely not expecting.  The most important part involved the two primary charters that the series seemed to have centered around. Daenerys still died at Jon’s hands but instead of assuming the Iron Throne Jon went the back to what was left of the Wall and then, as far as I can tell, went to go live with the free folk north of the Wall.  For the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros the North breaks away and the remaining six are suddenly transformed into the Holy Roman Empire.   Yes, I did not see that last part happening.   

On this blog I normally review history books and every now and again give a political opinion about something.  However since George R.R. Martin bases so much of his fictional world, stories, and characters on real historical events and people it might be fun to take a look at Game of Thrones from that perspective.  Throughout the series several characters laid claim to have been a king or a queen, the question I thought to answer would be how many of those characters would actual history books view as having been such?  Who would make the official list of monarchs of their various kingdoms when professional historians, students, and armatures looked back at events centuries later?  With that said let’s take a look.

Robert Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Prior to series start

Historically recognized: Yes

King Robert Baratheon was far and away the most successful king in the series

             Robert Baratheon was first born son of the Lord of Storms End, a position that was one of the great lords paramount of Westeros.  As a Baratheon he was closely related to the Targaryens.  Robert’s  ancestor Orys Baratheon was the bastard brother of Aegon the Conqueror and more recently his paternal grandmother was a daughter of King Aegon V.  Robert inherited his father’s title while he was still a boy when his parents were killed in a shipwreck.  Lord Robert then went to live with the Jon Arryan, the Lord of the Vale, as a ward to learn from him how to be a great lord.  There he met Eddard Stark, second son of the Lord of Winterfell, who became his lifelong best friend.

             When his attended Lyanna Stark ran off with Rhaegar Targaryen, Lord Robert believing that she had been kidnapped, or refusing to believe the truth, rebelled against King Ares II.  Known as the Mad King, Aerys II had killed Rickard and Brandon Stark making Ned Stark the Lord of Winterfell.  Jon Aryyan joined an alliance with his former wards against their King.  Robert never gets Lyanna back but he kills Rhaegar and wins his rebellion.  With the Mad King dead by Jamie Lannister and the Mountain killing Rhaegar’s family Robert ascends to the Iron Throne. 

             Robert’s claim is one of the greatest.   It is even superior to that a king’s first-born son.  It is the claim my big army beat your big army.  What was won by King Aegon I can by lost by King Aerys II.  Although King Robert did not like to see it that way,  in his mind the rebellion was not his fault but a natural reaction to events where he as the victim.  King Aerys II and the rest of the Targaryens fell from power naturally and he was the rightful heir being a great-grandson of Aegon V.  Of course discovering Aerys’s other two children were still alive killed that narrative and he started to plot murder. 

            A good real life example is England’s King Henry IV.  He overthrew his tyrant cousin King Richard II and claimed the throne for himself.  Like Robert, Henry saw the rebellion as being not his fault but rather he was the victim of events.  And also like the fictional Robert, the real Henry tried to pretend that he was the natural heir to the throne, but in the end he really ruled by right of conquest.
 

King Henry IV of England the real life Robert

           In the entire series Robert is the strongest and most secure king.  He reigns for almost two decades; he successfully puts down counter rebellions or secessionists, and all former houses that stood for House Targaryen have had to make their peace with him.  At the time of his death King Robert I was the undisputed ruler of the Seven Kingdoms and clearly on any historians list.

Viserys Targaryen

First claimed to be King: Prior to series start

Historically recognized: Yes

The story of Viserys Targaryen: Woulda Coulda Shoulda

Old Pretender by rights should have been the King of England and who Viserys reminded me the most of.

             This one might surprise people and I myself had to wait to very last episode before making this call. Now the first reaction might be “but this guy never really ruled how can he possibly be on any list”?  True many would/should have been kings typically do not make any official list just look at the Old and Young Pretenders.  However history has seen some would-be rulers recognized as legitimate monarchs; a great example is France’s King Louis XVII.  Louis XVII was a child whose parents, King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, were overthrown and killed during the French Revolution.   He himself never ruled and died in the custody of the revolutionaries.  After the fall of Napoleon the dead child’s uncle re-claimed the French crown.  The new King called himself Louis XVIII, thus recognizing his nephew’s legitimacy.

King Louis XVII of France, never on the Throne but on the list

             Born the second son of King Aerys II, Viserys spent his early childhood as a prince and the spare heir to the Kingdoms.  When his brother fell before Robert and King’s Landing was about to fall, his father the King declared Viserys his heir and sent him with his mother, Queen Rhalle, to be smuggled out of Westeros.  The Queen crowned Viserys when they heard of the death of his father.  She died giving birth to his sister Daenerys, and the two children lived as beggars on in off in Essos. Viserys survives, makes friends, and even has allies strong enough to arrange a marriage alliance for his sister.  However time in exile causes him to crack and become abusive towards his sister. In the end he is murdered by his own brother-in-law.

            Like little Louis, it the success and the establishment of another relative, in this case his sister (see Daenerys section), that keeps Viserys III on a historians list of Westeros monarchs.    

    

Balon Greyjoy

First claimed to be King: Prior to series start

Historically recognized: No

Balon Greyjoy, first in line a losers

            First the Greyjoys were never kings.  Even back when the Iron Islands had their own independent monarch it was not the Greyjoys.  The last true King of the Iron Islands burnt in castle he built in Riverlands when Aegon the Conqueror torched it.  That wiped out the last ruling family and the Targaryens eventually allowed the Iron Islanders to select a new lord.  They chose the Greyjoys.   

           When Robert Baratheon overthrew the Targaryens, Balon wondered whether they should be loyal to the Iron Throne with a different family now controlling it.  Balon declared independence for the Iron Islands and crowned himself king.  Then Robert Baratheon showed up with his army and navy and kicked the snot out of him.  Towers were torn down and his older sons were killed and his youngest sent to live with Ned Stark.  Balon survived because he bent the knee to King Robert reestablishing the Iron Islands' connection of the Iron Throne. 

           As civil war breaks out among Lord Balon sees this as an opportunity to assert his independence again.  Once more proclaiming himself King of the Iron Islands he is approached by his long lost son Theon.  Theon offers him an alliance with Robb Stark against the Iron Throne.  Balon wants to pay the iron price for his independence and learning nothing from his previous mistakes he convinces Theon if he truly wants to be iron born he must turn on the North.  He sends his last son on a mission that was pointless where Theon got captured and his dick was cut off.  That ended the ability for Balon to continue the family through a male line.  He still had his daughter Yara who he liked better anyway, but she left to go find her brother. 

           After the war Balon is somewhat independent but that is just because no one is paying attention.  His own brother shows up and throws Balon's worthless self of a bridge.  At the end of the series Yara Greyjoy is in left in charge of Iron Islands but not as an independent queen but a lieutenant for a greater ruler.  Without the ability to establish his own independent kingdom, Balon goes down in history as a petty lord who thought he was a king.     
          

Mance Rayder

First claimed to be King: Prior to series start

Historically recognized: Maybe

Mance Rayder, one of history's great kings if Wildlings learn to read and write

            I hate to sound really mean here but this one totally depends on how literate the free folk are.  Mance Rayder a former member of the Night’s Watch who defected to the wildlings and ultimately united the tribes to earn himself the title “King Beyond the Wall.”  The thing is though does anyone know how many Kings beyond the Wall they have had?  It seems the only ones who may ever recognize Mance as a king may be the descendants of his adversaries to south.  Maybe Jon Snow taking the title at the end might help change some things up north of the Wall in regards to literacy?  Sam is not there though, so I doubt it.

Daenerys Targaryen

First claimed to be Queen: Season 1 Episode 6

Historically recognized: Yes

Queen Daenerys, everyone's favorite until those last few episodes

             For eight years the fans of Game of Thrones got to watch Daenerys Targaryen go from scared exiled princess to young kalessi to strong queen to mad tyrant.  That last one was a little hard for most of us to take.  I did not mind the result just the execution at the end was far too rushed. However was she a true queen?   The answer is yes.  For one she was indisputably the Queen of Meereen.  A second harder question is should she have been recognized as a Queen of Seven Kingdoms?   There is an argument for her not to be.  You can point out that she died so shortly after winning everything that she never had time to really be the queen.   However there are two things one needs to consider.  The first is she did, however briefly, rule it all.  The second is she made a couple of appointments that would outlive her reign: Yara Greyjoy and Gendry Baratheon.

Appointed Lady of the Iron Islands

            After losing the Iron Islands to her uncle Yara Greyjoy bends the knee to form an alliance with Daenerys in order to win them back.   With House Baratheon now extinct Daenerys decides to legitimatize King Robert’s bastard and give him the family titles.  Houses Targaryen and Baratheon were very close in the beginning and marrying in a number of times after.  Yet Baratheons betrayed the Targaryens usurping them and depriving them of the Iron Throne they had built and sat on for centuries.  Ironically Daenerys death and Jon Snow not accepting his legacy the Targaryens are now extinct but the Baratheons were saved by one the two acts of Daenerys. 

Appointed Lord of Stroms End

            When the Great Lords met at the end of the series Lord Gendry and Lady Yara were both among and recognized by them.  And by acknowledging the legitimacy of those two they were by default acknowledging the legitimacy of Daenerys Targaryen.
         

Joffrey Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Season 1 Episode 7

Historically recognized: Yes

Joffrey Baratheon the child of evil

           As much as it may pain me to say it yes Joffrey would be historically recognized.  I know I can hear the cry “but he is an incestuous bastard.”  However some facts need to be taken into consideration.  First legally speaking he is the son of Robert Baratheon and Cersei Lannister for a husband always has presumed paternity over his wife’s children.  During his lifetime King Robert never challenged his presumed paternity over Joffrey and his siblings.  Also there is no way to really prove it short of public confession from Cersei or Jamie.  There is no such thing as a DNA test in Westeros.  Ned Stark’s recognition that “Joffrey is a blond Baratheon” may have been right but only a broken clock sense seeing it is actually a stupid argument.  His mother’s family is predominately blond.

           After his ascension Westeros plunged into civil war.  However that war was won and when the dust settled Joffrey was left sole ruler.  Despite his mother’s so called “Queen Regent” title Joffrey did primarily as he pleased as one could see with Ned Stark’s execution.  In the end the only way he could be removed was with an assassin’s poison.  
   

Stannis Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Season 1 Episode 8

Historically recognized: No

Stannis Baratheon, why did anyone like him?

            Yes I know he didn’t show up on screen to season 2.  But he been calling himself king the moment he got the raven from Ned Stark.  However he never really becomes king.  He has an army and he tries to become king but he never does.  Stannis never controls any part of Westeros outside of Dragonstone was far as I can tell.  He just keeps losing men and resources until he doesn’t have any anymore and Brienne of Tarth does him a favor and puts him out of his misery. 

             It is a good thing that he did not become king because Stannis wouldn’t have been a good one considering he is religious nut who lights people for not having the same religion, even his allies and relatives.   And since his is a minority religion he would be burning a lot of people.   

            Some might consider him a rightful king considering the true parentage of Cersei’s children, however as I said there was no way to really prove that.  Also being the rightful heir doesn’t really mean much just ask the Bonnie Prince Charlie or Viserys Targaryen. 

The Young Pretender AKA The Bonnie Prince Charlie could tell Stannis how useful it was to be the rightful heir

Renly Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Season 1 Episode 7

Historically recognized: No

Renly Baratheon, the right and wrong choice at the same time

             Renly was the only one of his brothers who had the right head to be a good moral king.  Unfortunately he lacked the ruthlessness of his brothers to succeed in the world of Game of Thrones.  Lord Renly should have arranged an assassination of his older brother Stannis the moment he heard that King Robert was dying.  Without such ruthlessness he looked like a fool who had no real claim to the Iron Throne as he was trying to seize it.

            Nevertheless it almost worked out for him, he kind or reminded me of gay version of England King Henry I, the youngest son of William the Conqueror who through great political skill ended up in control of his all the dominions of his father.   However Renly was killed by a shadow creature before he could really rule anything. 

King Henry I of England like Renly without being fictional, gay, and killed by shadow creature

Robb Stark

First claimed to be King: Season 1 Episode 10

Historically recognized: Yes

Robb Stark, we will never be over that episode

           Despite the untimely end to a fan favorite character I have to stay he would be historical recognized.  This is true even though his bid for the Northern Independence ended in betrayal and his murder as well as several more murders.  King Robb certainly earned the right to be historically recognized through his great military prowess, but in the end that was not what did it.  Like Viserys Targaryen, a man who earned no braids[i], it was actually they success of little sister who gets him on the list.  Since Sansa is an independent Queen in the North at the end of the series Robb status as a historical King in the North is secured. 

Tommen Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Season 4 Episode 2

Historically recognized: Yes

Tommen Baratheon, worked hard to get people to miss Joffrey

           After we happily saw Joffrey die we never thought we would miss him.  But then this weak loser made it clear that removing Joffrey was such a mistake.  As bad as Joffrey was he would not have allowed his fear of violence, as he had none so long as he was in control, to prevent him from crushing a fanatical religious movement that ultimately kidnapped his brother -in-law, wife, and mother.  Stand by and do nothing while they are tortured and humiliated.  Nor would Joffrey had given in to said movement like Tommen even though it continued to harm those he cares for and put his mother in a desperate position.   When Cersei finally struck back it killed more people than would have died if King Tommen had just crushed them the moment the sparrows first tried to block his path.

          Best thing this loser ever did was throw himself out a window.

Yara Greyjoy

First claimed to be Queen: Season 6 Episode 5

Historically recognized: No

Yara Greyjoy hit her head on the iron glass ceiling

             When we first meet Yara we do not know who she is and Theon hits on her before being told she was his sister.  When he meets his father it is clear to Theon that Yara has replaced him as heir in his father’s eyes.  To earn it back Theon betrays the Starks and goes on a mission for his father that ends in his literal emasculation. 

             Theon returns to partial recovered and more mature chooses to support his sister’s claim, only to watch his sister hit the iron island glass ceiling.  Despite everything that happened the Ironborn were willing to have Theon as their leader over his sister, which means everything he went through was completely pointless!   When Theon throws his support to Yara their uncle Euron shows up, and despite him having murdered the previous leader, is elected ruler.

            Yara does eventually does get the Iron Islands.    However she does so not as an independent power but rather an agent of Queen Daenerys Targaryen and after her King Bran Stark.  So Yara goes down in history as the Lady of the Iron Islands not a queen.

Euron Greyjoy

First claimed to be King: Season 6 Episode 5

Historically recognized: No

Euron Greyjoy might have been the best Greyjoy but still a Greyjoy

            This is one is rather easy.  After taking control of the Iron Islands and proposing a possible marriage alliance with Cersei Lannister he could have possibly become a real king.  However the winners write history and Euron, like all the Greyjoys, was a loser.  Granted he was the most impressive member of his family and had some high moments but, like a Greyjoy, a failure in the end. 

Cersei Lannister

First claimed to be Queen: Season 6 Episode 10

Historically recognized: I don’t know maybe?

Queen Cersei was interesting to the end

             During the course of this series I often said that Cersei Lannister could be considered the greatest political player in the game of thrones if the world ended at the gates of Kings Landing.   Unfortunately for her Westeros was a continent.  

             Now Cersei is undoubtedly a queen consort as she was married to King Robert for number of years.  She played the role of queen mother for both Joffrey and Tommen.  Although she called herself “Queen Regent” that was a joke, she was never Regent over anyone seeing as Joffrey did whatever he wanted and Tommen did whatever other people wanted.   Now was she truly a Queen Regnant that is a queen who rules in her own right?

             Succeeding Tommen on the Iron Throne was somewhat questionable to begin with because I am not sure what lawful claim she had to it.  Also I am not sure how widely it was recognized.  After Tommen’s death Highgarden, Dorne, and the North were in full rebellion.  Daenerys controlled Dragonstone and also the Stormlands it would appear.  So it seems just the Crown Lands and Casterly Rock recognized Queen Cersei.  Eventually the Iron Islands when Euron came to town.  Jamie took Highgarden but they had to trade Casterly Rock, which may have been a good trade but then Daenerys took Highgarden right back.  Yara also took back the Iron Islands.  So where was Cersei queen but Kings Landing? 
  

Jon Snow

First claimed to be King: Season 6 Episode 10

Historically recognized: Yes

Jon Snow he really did no nothing including his own name

           Well we didn’t get to see Jon publicly recognize his lost heritage and become King Aegon VI of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.  However, as Jon Snow, he was proclaimed by his people to be the King in the North.  Granted it was a title he only held for a minute before bending the knee to Queen Daenerys, but with young sister/cousin becoming Queen in the end he will be recognized in the Northern Kingdom as one of their kings.  Also he might also now be King Beyond the Wall, again historical recognition for that may dependent on the Wildlings ability to read.

Sansa Stark

First claimed to be Queen: Season 8 Episode 6

Historically recognized: Yes

Sansa Stark, winner in the end

            Once upon a time Sansa was the one Stark I could not stand.  Yet watching grow from pawn to queen was one of the great arcs of the series.   I did think it was odd that the moment they made her brother king she decides that the North is seceding.  I would have thought the one thing to keep the North in their royal union would be Stark on melted throne.  But as Eddard Stark’s last son ascends Sansa says “we are out”?   However at the end of the series we see Sansa on her throne the established Queen in the North. 

Bran Stark

First claimed to be King: Season 8 Episode 6

Historically recognized: Yes

Brandon Stark Holy Roman Emperor, I mean King of the Six Kingdoms

          Who has a better story than Bran the Broken?  Someone whose story does not involve riding on the back of Hodor whose running through a forest as they search for a tree.  A story so exciting that it was left out of an entire season.  Which is okay is because know everything that happened to him that season. 

          "Hodor"
          "No, that is not the right tree."
          "Hodor"
           "No, that is not the right tree, either."
           "Hodor"
            "I know this is forest but we need the right tree not just any tree!" 

             I cannot think of another character whose storyline was more boring.  If given the choice between going over Bran’s story again or reading his uncle Edmure Tully’s autobiography A Search for Respect: One Lord’s Journey, with a forward written by the late Theon Greyjoy, I would learn more than I ever wanted to know about the Lord of the Riverlands.

             Brandon Stark AKA King Bran the Broken gets a reduced union of kingdoms, demoted from seven to six.  The broken king gets a broken nation when his own homeland shows it's faith by leaving.  Since we are told Bran cannot have children the remaining Kingdoms transform into a Westeros version of the Holy Roman Empire, with Bran as the first elected monarch.

HONORABLE MENTION

THE NIGHT KING

The Night King, I was hoping he would win

             He won’t count historically because I am quite certain zombies do not count their kings, despite that he grew his own crown.  However you do have to hand it this guy.  Think of all great moments the Night King had.  

The time where after defeating Jon Snow and the Wildlings on their retreat he takes all the enemy dead and raises them.  


The time where he took down a dragon with a single spear shot that he threw and later used that same dragon to bring down the Wall.  


The time where it looked like Daenerys was going to turn him into the Night Ashes but showed not only was he immune to fire but could stand in it and remain fully dressed.  (It was that last one that actually drove Queen Daenerys in sane.  Realizing that after all this time she did not have to go streaking though the fire was too much.  She burned Kings Landing just to see any clothing survived the onslaught and if so to make her into her new outfit.)

   

   It is true that he had terrible end but really who on show had a good one?

---

[i] Season 1 Reference.