THE LAST KING OF AMERICA

A review of Jeremy Black’s George III: America’s Last King (2006)

(Rating 5 of 5)

Jeremy Black has written a very good biography of one of the most important monarchs in world history: King George III. I think in the end George III was a good king, just not great one. He might have been able to be a great one but his mental health stood in the way of any possible greatness. George III did however provide precedence for the monarch as a ceremonial figurehead of unity rather than an active ruler. He was a person of great abilities and great flaws.

Unlike a lot of his contemporary monarchs of the same time period George III accepted the concept of constitutional monarchy. During this period Gustav III of Sweden suspended his country’s constitution, Louis XVI tried to undermine the constitution forced upon him, and Russians dared not challenge the rights of the Tsar. King George III was not only loyal to the British constitution, but he actually loved the idea of the British system. George III understood that his family’s very claim to the throne of Great Britain was dependent on the very idea of revolution and he was committed to the British ideal.

(King George III)
Unlike his immediate predecessors George III was very British. The Royal Family for the bulk of the last century had been what we would now call an immigrant family. Like most immigrant families after a few generations they embrace their family's adopted home over mother country. George I and II were German princes who were Kings of Great Britain; George III was a British prince. George however had several problems. The first of these problems was even though he believed in his constitution, his constitution was unwritten. Today in the United States we often debate about what our written constitution means, imagine debating what the unwritten one is suppose to mean. And it seems that everyone’s interpretation of this unwritten constitution is the interpretation that gives their political group the most power. George knew he was King and as King he had certain rights under the constitution to govern his country under the law and traditions established.


(King George III, older)

I have some sympathy with George, although I do not agree with monarchy, if you are going to have one does it not make sense to let the monarch do his job? It seems throughout his reign King George would try to his job as the unwritten constitution defined it, only to be criticized as a Stuart want-a-be. He thought he had to job to do, tried to do it, and was criticized for undermining the constitution that he actually loved.


(King George III with a nice hat)

He also had a hard time accepting any change what so ever. He could not see that the House of Commons need to be reformed, he could not listen to the needs and legitimacy of the plight of the American colonists, and he needed to be nudged into supporting the abolition of the slave trade. Most importantly he saw the emancipation of Catholics in Britain to be a betrayal of the Glorious Revolution that brought his family to power.


(What George would like to forget.)

His last major problem was his battles with mental illness. This problem would undermine his reign and destroy his attempts to make an active monarchy. He would have to accept a more ceremonial figurehead role during the Napoleonic wars, although in that role he would have his greatest rise in popularity.



An ironic twist in King George III’s career is although he most known for losing the thirteen American colonies that became the United States of America, under King George III, Britain actually underwent a very large expansion of its imperial borders.

“In 1779, firmly stating his resolution never to grant American independence, George claimed that such a measure ‘must entirely fix the fall of this empire.’ Instead, on the global scale, the reach of British power provided one of the most lasting legacies of George’s reign, and one that, in the shape of political culture, survived the end of the British empire. As a result of this reach, this chapter is necessarily eclectic, but it reflects the range of activities and topics in which George was engaged as a result of the spread of the empire, and the very different ways in which he was of real or symbolic importance. One of the most enduring aspects was naming which marked British imperial expansion with the royal presence. The process of naming is still readily apparent, especially in areas where the end of imperial control was not accompanied by a determination to reject the legacy of the past. The royal nomenclature of place indeed is the most persistent for the Hanoverian period, when empire was largely a case of North America and the West Indies: Georgetowns and Charlottes testify to the reach of British power and the determination to identify colonies with the crown and the royal family.” (p.329)

When he ascended to the throne of Great Britain he had two goals. The first goal was to restore the monarch to a more active role in the government from the more a supervisory role of his grandfather and great-grandfather. The second was to make the monarchy above politics and a symbol of unity. On first point he failed and the second he succeeded. The reason for this is these were contradictory goals. You cannot act political and be above politics.

Jeremy Black wrote a very great book about a very difficult ruler. I only a have few quibbles, for example why is words ‘king’ and ‘king of Great Britain’ not capitalized but the words ‘Elector’ and ‘Elector of Hanover’ are. Also there is slight error; George Washington never preferred the title ‘His Mightiness, President of the United States and the protector of their liberties’. That was John Adams, Washington rejected that, although everything else Black said about Washington is true. Other than those two things the book is perfect.

{Video is from the movie The Madness of King George}

FORGOTTEN FAMILY

A review of Veronica Baker-Smith’s Royal Discord: The Family of George II (2008)

(Rating 5 of 5)

In Royal Discord Veronica Baker-Smith explores the British Royal Family during the time of King George II. The children of George II are often ignored in British history despite the fact that they had significant contributions. At first glance the reason seems obvious: none of this King’s children had ever sat on the throne themselves. The heir Fredrick, the Prince of Wales, died before his father did, but not before he himself had many children to ensure that the throne would never pass to his siblings. George II would be followed by his grandson, not his son. The third Hanoverian generation was never represented on the line of British kings. This however is not a good explanation because the children of Edward III never occupied the throne either and they are almost all remembered. There really is no good reason why these royals were forgotten they just were. Baker-Smith’s focus is on the King himself, his two sons and his eldest daughter. The whole family is covered but those four are the most prominent.

As for King George II, I would guess he must have suffered from mental illness like his successor and grandson. The way he treated his family and his really bizarre behavior around his ministers, led me to believe that he must have been mentally ill. The author describes him as knocking over furniture to find a penny and kicking his wig around the floor.


(King George II)

Fredrick, the Prince of Wales, comes off as extremely tragic. At the age of seven he is left behind to a figurehead in Hanover, occasionally waiting for his grandfather, George I, to come visit him. When he comes to England his parents cruelly isolate him from the rest of the family, openly ridiculing him, and hoping that he would impotent as so not to deprive their favorite son, the Duke of Cumberland, from the throne. Well even though Fredrick would not outlive his father and thus would never be king, he would marry and produce nine children. The multiple children meant the younger brother would never be the king.


(Fredrick, the Prince of Wales)

William Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland was a great military leader and reformer. The Duke had an incredible military career distinguishing himself in the War of Austrian Succession and putting down the rebellion of 1745. In defeating the rebellion he crushed the dreams of Young Pretender of claiming back his country for his dad and himself. The Duke would be the favorite of his parents but had a falling out with his father toward the end of his father’s life. This however opened up for him an opportunity to serve as a senior statesman during the reign of his nephew, King George III.


(William Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland)

Anne, the Princess Royal of Great Britain, the eldest daughter of the King, she was a princess who wanted to be queen. Anne often wished not to have brothers so she could claim the crown. However she married the Prince of Orange, William IV, which allowed her to hold a consort position in the Dutch Republic. When her husband died she was regent to her son but was also given a legitimate position within the Republic.


(Anne, Princess Royal)

“Anne’s whole-hearted identification with her adopted country was recognized and thus gave her, theoretically, a powerful and unique position for an English princess: she could be seen as a ruler in her own right rather than just representing her son.” (p.167)

This family should not have been forgotten they were very interesting individuals. If HBO or Showtime were looking for ideas, they might want to take a look at these people.

{Video is David Starkey's Monarchy: House of Hanover}

FORGOTTEN GEORGE

A review of Ragnhild Hatton’s George I (1978)

(Rating 4 of 5)

Ragnhild Hatton wrote a very good biography of a very forgotten—yet important—King of Great Britain. ‘Lucky George’ was the good fortune recipient of the Civil Wars that plagued Britain during the seventeenth century. He became the patriarch of the modern British dynasty, although they have since changed their name. George I’s rise to the British throne was really the pinnacle of an already successful political and military career. Although England’s patron saint since the time of Edward III was St. George, England never had a ‘King George’ until this monarch. They would go on to have five after him. This man did indeed live an interesting life.


(King George I)

Born in Germany in the final phase of what was call the Holy Roman Empire. His father Ernst August did everything he could to have his Duke of Hanover title converted into an electoral one. George’s destiny would be even greater where his dad became an elector he became a king.


(Electress Sophia of Hanover, matriarch of the modern British dynasty.)

The reputation that King George I has is that of a boring stand in. During the reigns of William III and Anne there were rumors that the Old Pretender was a changeling switched with a dead baby. This gave at least a hint of legitimacy to their rule. But there was no pretending with the House of Hanover, with over fifty people were better claims, they knew they owed their crown to a revolution, despite whether or not they wanted to admit it. The prettier, charismatic Stuarts seem to gain a great deal of sympathy against the boring, plain German dynasty.

This book debunks a lot of the myths about George I. Far from being a boring old king, he was general who led armies of the Holy Roman Empire during the War of Spanish Succession. Becoming King of Great Britain was a literal crowning achievement of an already spectacular career. He also, despite his reputation, acquired a working knowledge of English. When people say ‘constitutional monarchy’ what they mean is ceremonial figurehead. However that does not really describe King George I, he was an actually ruler who governed his kingdom with his ministers but understood and accepted that the King was restrained by law.



The only downside to this book is capitalization. No titles in this book are capitalized. In the text you have king George, prince Fredrick, and emperor Charles. It is very annoying. Despite this one drawback it is a quite good biography.

{Video from the series Kings and Queens of England}

A THORN IN THE SIDE OF LOUIS XIV

A review of Stephan Baxter’s William III (1966)

(Rating 4 of 5)

Stephan Baxter tells the story of the Dutchman who became the King of England. Both the people of Holland and the people of Britain knew him as William III. To the Dutch he was William III Prince of Orange, two of the previous princes being his father and his great-grandfather—the famous William the Silent. To the English he was King William III, the two previous kings to bear that name was the Conqueror himself and the useless son, William Rufus. This William would do the same things his predecessors (Silent and Conqueror) did, but the result would be far different.

William was born the only child of William II, Prince of Orange and Mary, Princess of Orange and Princess Royal of England. He was a citizen of the Dutch Republic, a very confusing political entity if there ever was one. Although a Republic, it still had nobility, hereditary princes, and the leadership of a ‘Great Man’ who dominated the Republic. Despite their size and confusing political system they were the premier power of their day.

However their day was quickly ending with the rise of France under the rule of King Louis XIV. The Sun King as he was called would be the most powerful man in Europe getting fellow kings, emperors, and popes to have to follow his directive. Baxter presents William as the hero of the Republic. The Prince would build and led coalitions against the emerging superpower. Although the era would still be the Age of Louis XIV, William would preserve the Republic’s independence, and carry the banner of Protestantism.


(King Louis XIV the most powerful monarch in Europe)

However, what William is most famous for is his role in what is known as the Glorious Revolution. The Glorious Revolution would result in the overthrow of his father-in-law, King James II, and would establish both he and his wife as the new King and Queen of England. William’s great-grandfather, the Prince of Orange known as William the Silent, set precedent of a foreign prince aiding an oppressed people. In addition, over six hundred years previous his distant ancestor William the Conqueror he would land in England during a succession dispute depose the King by force and take the crown itself. William III preferred to emulate his more recent Dutch ancestor. He wanted to be William the Deliverer who crossed the Channel to hold a free Parliament for the British people.


(William's uncle and father-in-law who be dethroned in the Glorious Revolution. He has the interesting distinction of being the only deposed King of England not to be murdered.)


(The winners: William and Mary now King William III and Queen Mary II of England)

The Prince of Orange also had a distinct advantage the Duke of Normandy did not. The Prince really did have the people behind him. King James II had been a terrible monarch, but he had none of the survival skills that his older brother, Charles II, had processed. In one way that I found Baxter lacking is the author discusses many things about James’ mind: that he lost his nerve, that he made foolish mistakes, and he might have been able to salvage the situation had he not turned into a coward. Yet, not once does Baxter mention the fate of James’ father, King Charles I, who was deposed, tried, and executed. I would think that during a Revolution against his rule that he feels he may not win, his father’s fate would be close to his mind. Nevertheless, he runs and gives a clear field to the Dutchman.

“One of the great myths of the Revolution of 1688 is that it was made by the nobility rather than the people of England. It was not. The ultimate cause of course, was the misgovernment of James II which so alienated the people that two abortive risings occurred as early as 1685.” (p.243-4)

In a way, William put himself in the same trap that King Henry IV fell into. By refusing to assume the role of conqueror he, like Henry, limited his right to rule based on competence and Parliamentary approval. As so he would find the position of monarch directly weakened as a result. Although William’s revolution was bloodless compared to the Dukes of Normandy and Lancaster, by unintentionally coping the later he found himself in a compromised position. Although, what was bad for the King was a good thing for long-term democracy and freedom codified in the English Bill of Rights. The right of a people to overthrow tyranny established by this Revolution would create precedent for people across the pond in less than a hundred years later.

“The rest of the Convention’s conduct was of a piece with its refusal to grant the King a life revenue. In February the King and Queen had accepted the crown of England on conditions, those contained in the famous Declaration of Right. William III was annoyed at any reduction of the royal power and hoped that the crown would not be the worse for his wearing it. At the time, the Declaration was explained to him as being a mere restatement of existing law. Whatever it might be, he hoped to have heard the last of it. Yet at the end of the years the Convention made the Declaration into a statute, known as the Bill of Rights.” (p.256)

William the Dutchman becoming the King of England would allow the British to copy the banking and merchant policies that allow little Holland to become a world power. The result would be the foundation of the great British Empire that would dominate the world for the next two hundred years.

Stephan Baxter tells a great story about a homely and shy prince who becomes not only one of the greatest monarchs the world had ever known but also a champion for freedom.

{In the video Eric Foner gives a good brief description of the Glorious Revolution and its impact on the colonies}

THE MERRY MONARCH

A review of Stephen Coote’s Royal Survivor: The Life of Charles II (1999)

(Rating 5 of 5)

Royal Survivor is great book written about an interesting person with a fascinating life. Born to the ultimate form of privilege Charles was the eldest son of the King. As and heir to the throne of the King of England, Charles spent his boyhood as the Prince of Wales leading a life a wealth and luxury. However as he grew to greater awareness, he observed the country go through the greatest upheaval in its history. The English Civil War was turning the world on its head. His father, King Charles I would be dethroned, tried, and executed. He would spend his young adulthood wandering around Europe, homeless, hoping other charitable monarchs to take him in and feed him. Then he is suddenly restored to his rightful place to begin a very memorable reign.


(Charles II as the Prince of Wales)

Charles II is most famous for being ‘the Merry Monarch’ I however found the most interesting parts of the book to be his time in exile. It was not easy for a prince born the heir to the throne believing he was rightful king in a monarchy that had now been abolished, having to now live in state of poverty. For Charles it must have been as if the whole world had turned upside down. Poor, homeless, and impoverished the man who considered himself to be a king was hardly living the life, being tossed back and forth between France, Holland, and Spain. His previous attempts to win back his crown had ended in disaster. However with the self-destruction of the Protectorate government of England a few years following the death of Oliver Cromwell, he was then presented with the opportunity of a lifetime. Parliament invited him back to rule, and Charles was restored in a change of government that almost bloodless! Only the regicides perished when King Charles II was actually able to rule his kingdom. It was an amazing feat that he played well, but it was a victory that he did not earn.

“There was also a more subtle reasons for irony. It was surely evident to Charles how small a part he had played in his own restoration. On the occasions when he had exerted himself and tried to regain his crown, the result had always been bloodshed, defeat and death. Now he had been bloodlessly willed into power by his own people, his single contribution having been the adroitness with which he had been able to present himself as the only credible alternative to the repeated failures of the Interregnum regimes. Charles had been restored not because of who he was but of what he was: his country’s legitimate monarch.”p.180

The reign of King Charles II was what the previous puritan regime was not: scandalous. The people, who lived under the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell’s major generals, were most likely grateful to live under a monarch who paraded his mistresses around with pride. However his reign was more than just about sex, during his kingship England saw great progress in the areas of science. And unlike his personnel restoration, which he played no great role in, he directly contributed to the scientific progress that defined his era. Charles’ grandfather, King James I, ruled a nation that took the idea of witches seriously. King James wrote a book about witches complete with flying broomsticks, and he seriously believed that it was a witch’s curse that gave him an overly large tongue. The England of King Charles II brought to the Western World Newtonian physics.

“The Royal Society was incorporated under a charter granted by Charles on 15 July 1662, and his genuine interest in scientific matters led to research and debate becoming fashionable among the nobility and gentry. Charles employed one of his gentlemen ushers to convey his enquiries to the Society and probed the members as to why sensitive plants flinched and contracted when touched, and why ants’ eggs were sometimes bigger than the ants themselves. He arranged for a laboratory to be built in his palace at Whitehall where experiments could be conducted before him or he could investigate problems for himself. He took a keen interest in inventions that the society patented, presented it with curiosities, and throughout his life provided members with the venison traditionally eaten at the anniversary dinner. What Charles was encouraging in such ways was a profound change in the manner in which the elite looked at the world.

The regular publication of research was a crucial part of the Society’s early achievement and, if the initial hopes of its founders were nor immediately realized, the record of its success is remarkable indeed. The group of scholars and gentlemen amateurs incorporated by Charles included Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle and above all Sir Isaac Newton. Though the discoveries of these men especially, it became possible to view the universe as acting in all places and at all times according to consistent and verifiable rules or natural laws.” p.258-9

(Charles II as King)

Throughout his life and reign King Charles II was a brilliant politician in ways his father could have only dreamed of being. Despite his humble method in restoration he would emerge as a very powerful king. He has a troubling legacy in terms of succession. It is still unclear to me why he did not try to legitimize the Duke of Monmouth. King Henry VIII was desperate for an heir and often considered making his illegitimate son that person. Had Henry Fitzroy, the Duke of Richmond lived as long as his father he mostly likely would have been king. Even if Henry VIII held off to the birth of his legitimate son, Edward VI, Richmond still would have been in line in the same manner that his sisters, Mary I and Elizabeth I, were. Yet, Charles, even though Coote writes that the he considered his lawful heir, the Duke of York, to be a moron, he did not chose to support his son. Ultimately, he Duke of Monmouth suffered the same fate as his royal grandfather only it was more gruesome. Nevertheless the Exclusion crisis, which tried to prevent his brother from coming to the throne, allowed Charles to triumph over his political adversaries and emerge supreme.


(James II, Duke of York in his brother's and father's reigns. James II was a foolish king who was the last British monarch to be dethroned)


(The Duke of Monmouth, the eldest of the king's bastards and the first to try to dethrone his uncle. He failed and was beheaded.)

“He had emerged from the Exclusion Crisis as an unfettered sovereign, and as such he would remain. He distanced himself from his Tory supporters, refusing them the privileges they might legitimately have expected. Indeed, Charles was determined to lower the levels of political consciousness and excitement in the country as a whole, and to reduce the influence of party activity especially.” P.344

Royal Survivor is great book. The life of King Charles II is one incredible adventure and Coote creates a great narrative to explain it. I would recommend this book to the historian and non-historian alike.

{Video is from the BBC series The Last King- The Power and Passion of Charles II}

TRAGIC LIFE AND REIGN

A review of Christopher Hibbert’s Charles I: A Life of Religion War and Treason (1968 original) (2009, my copy)

(Rating 5 of 5)

His life could have been much better had his older brother Henry lived. That way England could have had its King Henry IX and Charles, the Duke of York, could have been a great art director. Instead death took his brother’s life and sent Charles to a position in which he was so over his head that he lost it.

During the course of this book I wondered how a monarchy so powerful in the days of the Tudors could become so weak and feeble. Part of King Charles’ problem was he was the son of King James. King James I had often boasted of his absolute power and wondered why his ancestors allowed an institution such as Parliament to come into existence. If King James had only done a tad bit of research he may have discovered that Edward Longshanks stole the idea from Simon De Montfort. King Edward I thought it would be best to have a meeting where the various interests of the kingdom could discuss any problems the kingdom was facing, raise money, and if anyone had any grievances to be able to air them. This allowed the King to govern more effectively and for most of its history Parliament was just a state of being as opposed to an institution with its own interests. For many effective monarchs, Parliament was just a method used by the King to strengthen his own power. One could imagine that Edward I, Edward III, Edward IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII, or Elizabeth I could have handled the problems the King Charles had to deal with far more effectively than he did. For King Charles I was brought up listening to his father’s theories and believed every one of them.


(Charles I was a great patron of the arts, his personal painter Sir Anthony van Dyck made many masterpieces for him, including this Charles in three positions)

Charles was clearly the wrong man for the job. He was so stubborn in his position that he would never negotiate until it was too late, and then, when willing, he wanted the previous terms offered to him. He had almost no sense of his situation. Despite being absolutely sure in his position he was slow to action. Everything he tried from his attempts to arrest Pym and other members of the Commons to his battle strategies he was too slow and unimaginative.

“Underlying melancholy there was a certain lack of sympathy in the King’s responses, a defensive rejection of an intimacy that might reveal him as a less assured man than he tried to be. Few men ever felt that Charles really liked them. Few servants ever felt that their services were truly appreciated: if they did not do their duty they were politely dismissed, if they did do their duty they were doing what was expected of them, they were treated well but rarely with a hint of warmth or affection.” (p.136)

After his defeat and imprisonment he remained as stubborn as ever, he made several attempts to escape and he tried to hold out hoping things might turn his way again. His moment of glory and greatness came, ironically, at his lowest moments. An American statesman, Senator Al Gore Sr., once observed that in defeat one could often let their glory out. Charles could and did at his trial and execution. He directly challenged the court questioning its legitimacy. His bravery and dignity at his own execution turned him into a martyr.




The one drawback of this book is there is no real discussion on the legitimacy of King Charles’ trial. When Louis XVI is tried by his people it is done with the monarchy abolished and the former King reduced to just plain citizen Louis Capet. When King Charles is tired he is tired as the King of England. That the King could be tried under existing laws is something absurd when one thinks of it. Yet this is never brought up, the only thing about the legal irregularities brought about was the mention that most of the nation’s top attorneys refused to participate.




In the end I found this to be a great an informative book. King Charles I was probably the second worst King of England, with only King Edward II being worse. Was Charles a tyrant like Richard II? I do not think so. Yes, he could be brutal, but no more than the Tudors or many other great kings and monarchs of this time period. I do feel what replaced him was, in the end, far worse.

{Video is from the movies Cromwell and To Kill a King}

THE EDITOR OF THE BIBLE

A review of Irene Carrier’s James VI and I King of Great Britain (1998)

(Rating 3 of 5)

Irene Carrier’s James is not a biography in the traditional sense, although it does contain some biographical narrative, it is an historical overview of the reign of the first monarch to rule over a united Britain. The book is divided into several chapters devoted to separate aspects of the reign. Each chapter has a biographical-type introduction, a timeline, and is loaded with primary sources that are mostly letters from James and his various associates. After each section of letters the author has questions for the reader—most of whom would be college students—to help them focus on the point of the letters.

The subject himself is pretty fascinating. The man who would succeed both of the rival queens, Mary I, Queen of Scots, and Elizabeth I, Queen of England, on their thrones. By the time he was a baby he was the son of a murder victim when his father, Henry Stuart, was killed. The primary suspect was his mother, the Queen. The controversy led to her overthrow and his enthronement as an infant. Like his mother, grandfather, and great-grandfather he would grow up as Scotland’s monarch. Later, he would lose his other parent when his mother, the dethroned Queen Mary, was executed under Elizabeth’s orders. Although he was more upset that his mother a queen was executed than his mother was executed.

Many Kings of England had tried and failed to add Scotland to their realms. However in 1603 the King of Scotland became the King of England. The man who was James VI in the north was now to the south, James I*. His great-great-grandfather, King Henry VII, whose James’ claim was based, had united the warring factions of the Yorkist and Lancastrians. Now the great-great-grandson was uniting two historically warring kingdoms.


(King James I, the first monarch of a united Britain)

“James VI’s departure for London in April 1603 amidst scenes of great emotion looked like the high point of Scottish pride. The Scots had given their ‘auld enemies’ a king, and thus provided the final answer to the aggression of Edward I, Edward III, and Henry VIII.” (p.142)

Dubbed by King Henry IV of France as the ‘wisest fool of Christendom,’ James would right three famous works. He would right about smoking, witches, and divine-right monarchy. He was against smoking**, against witches, and all for divine-right monarchy. The new version of the Bible was something that he had supervised at his Hampton Court Conference. Nevertheless he did have a heavy influence on the new version; you could say he was more the editor than the author of the King James Bible.

This is an okay book if you like primary sources and school textbooks. In the words of King Edward III ‘it is as is.’

*An interesting irony, James I, King of Scotland, was in England at the time of his ascension. He was there as a prisoner of England’s King Henry IV.

**Ironic considering Jamestown,the first permanent English colony, had as its primary crop: tobacco.

{Video from a BBC Documentary about the Gunpowder Plot}

THE SUN QUEEN

A review of J.E. Neale’s Queen Elizabeth I (1934, original) (2001, my copy)

(Rating 5 of 5)

When this book was first published in 1934 it was titled simply, Queen Elizabeth since there were no other Queens regnant named Elizabeth to distinguish her from. Nor were their signs of any to come. The future Queen Elizabeth II was then just the daughter of the Duke of York, who was the second son of the reigning King George V. When the new Elizabeth ascended in 1952 they had to republish this book under a new title, which made Neale really happy because now he could sell more books! Known as the book on Queen Elizabeth I, it does live up to its reputation.

A princess at birth and bastard by the time she could walk. Elizabeth’s early years were like riding in a modern roller-costar. An interesting irony of her life was her very existence was the result of her father’s desperate attempts at creating a male heir to inherit his throne. And that obsession led to England’s first two woman rulers, the second would be the one of the greatest rulers in all of history and arguably history’s greatest female ruler. From a historical perspective it made perfect sense for King Henry VIII to be so concerned with having a son. No King of England had ever successfully passed his throne to a daughter. The last who tried, Henry I, failed and England went into civil war. King Henry VII had ended the most recent civil war—the Wars of the Roses—and his son was not going to try to set stage for a new one. However, Henry VIII did give England something new to fight over, religion, and his second daughter would strike a victory to put Protestantism in place as England’s religion and Catholicism was sent on the defensive.


(Queen Elizabeth I)

It did not look like she would be the champion in the early days. Her younger brother, King Edward VI, showed no signs that he would not live as long as their father. She simply minded her studies and probably expected to married off in some way to support her brother’s regime.

“Events revealed another Elizabeth than the girl poring over Saint Cyprian, Sophocles, and Cicero. Her father died in January, 1547, when she was thirteen and a half years old. She was spared the harrowing sight of a death-bed, and as she precociously indicated in her letters to her brother, she was able to take her loss with Christian and philosophic fortitude. The future seemed bright. She shared the religious and intellectual outlook of the new king. Protestantism was in the saddle and the uncertainties of the old reign at an end. It might mean, it did mean ill for her sister Mary, but that was calculated to throw into even greater relief the perfect harmony between Elizabeth and Edward.” (p.17)

Destiny would decide on another role for her. Edward’s death brought their sister Mary to the throne of England. Mary I would try to restore the Catholic faith to England and Elizabeth would have to be at her most cunning to survive her sister’s reign as the Queen of England. But Mary’s reign was shorter than their brother’s and soon Elizabeth would begin one of the most glorious reigns ever. Key to the new Queen’s success was her intelligence, cunning and her ability to pick the right people to aid her in her rule.


(Queen Mary I, known as 'Bloody Mary')

“There was no greater tribute to the tolerance, sagacity, and masterful nature of Elizabeth than her choice of such ministers as Walsingham. She chose them for their ability, their honesty, and their unshakable loyalty. Even in their intensity they were the expression of the England she was nurturing, and if like thoroughbreds they were hard to ride she was the perfect horsewoman. Like them she covet glory, but thought it true glory to maintain the good yeoman, living in the temperate zone betwixt greatness and want, who wore russet clothes but made golden pocket. With a lively sense of the limitations of English resources, she preferred to trim the countries sails to the winds when and how they blew, rather than set them at once for a storm that might not come.” (p.234)

One area where Queen Elizabeth was extremely successful was foreign policy. She never developed a rivalry with any of the kings of France while she was Queen, like her father did with King Francis I. This probably had something to do with the fact that there were five men during her reign that were the King of France (Henry II, Francis II, Charles IX, Henry III, and Henry IV) therefore there was no time for any rivalry to develop.


(Queen Elizabeth I)

Like many English monarchs before her she had to deal with Scotland. Queen Elizabeth was the last Queen of England who would have to deal with a Scottish Monarch, for after her reign the crowns would unite in the person of her rival’s son. The main rival of her life was the Queen of Scots and her own heir presumptive, Mary Stuart. This Queen Mary would be Catholicism’s champion in the same way Elizabeth was Protestantism’s. Mary would become Elizabeth’s prisoner and Elizabeth would sign her death warrant to prevent a conspiracy from assassinating herself and bringing her rival to her throne. Elizabeth’s decision in some ways echoes Henry II’s decision to have Thomas Becket killed. It was probably the right decision, but both lived to regret it.


(Mary, Queen of Scots, executed by order of Elizabeth)

“On November 16th, Elizabeth sent to warn her of the sentence against her, of the Parliament’s petition, and the possibility of death. She did not flinch. No repentance, no submission, no acknowledgement of her fault, no craving for pardon could be drawn from her. She sat down to make her appeal to the world and posterity in eloquent and impassioned letters. She was playing her last act, still with a great heart, still without scruple. Her declarations to the Pope, though written in the solemn, confessional mood of death, are, some of them, sorry lies. And yet there was a sound instinct in the presentation of herself as a martyr for the Catholic faith. The Catholic struggle in England had been personified in her. She wished to die in that role. When Paulet down her cloth of state, she now being a woman dead to the law and in capable of all dignities, she set in its place pictures of Christ’s passion and a Cross.”(p.286-7)

Mary’s execution would mean England would have two consecutive monarchs whose mother had been executed for treason. Although James had no emotional attachment to his mother—she may have killed his father, parent slaying parent is also something Elizabeth could relate to—he tried to have her death prevented however his objections had limits.

“It was only a few months since James had finally concluded a league with Elizabeth, and his vigorous intercession for his mother’s life seemed at first to invaluable alliance. But Master James was still first and foremost interested in Master James.” (p.287)

(The defeat of the Spanish Armada)

Elizabeth’s most famous rival was her former brother-in-law, King Philip II of Spain. Although the two saw eye to eye on a lot of things in their early days, Elizabeth’s support of the Protestant rebellion in the Netherlands and Admiral Sir Francis Drake’s pirating ways set Philip against her. Philip would send his famous Spanish Armada after her kingdom to reclaim it for the Catholic faith. The battle was one the most important in history.

“Much had been at stake in the great fight; nothing less than the future of Protestantism. And throughout Christendom, Catholic and Protestant had been praying, hoping, fearing for champions of their faith.” (p.310)

Elizabeth’s reputation was probably equal to both her father’s and her famous ancestor King Edward III. Even those who hated her had to admit that she was very impressive.

“Hated by her enemies, feared or loved by her subjects, at times the utter despair of her councilors—she might be all these, but no one could deny her success. ‘She is certainly a great Queen,’ said the new Pope, Sixtus V, ‘and were she only a Catholic she would be our dearly beloved. Just look how well she governs! She is only a woman, only mistress of half an island, and yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France, by the Empire, by all.”(p.294)

Queen Elizabeth I is great book about a great individual who I personally believe was the most important woman who ever walked the Earth.

{Video is a preview for the 2006 movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age}

FROM MEDIAEVAL KINGDOM TO MONDERN STATE

A review of Alison Weir’s Henry VIII: The King and His Court (2001)

(Rating: 5 of 5)

Before I began this review I want to comment on the interview with the author located in the back section of the book.  As a student and teacher of history I think it is obvious that there seems to be people in the history profession whose sole mission in life is to make history a boring topic. They take the fascinating and make it dull. Weir describes her passion as coming not from her classes but from a novel on Katherine of Aragon. She found her classes on the Industrial revolution dominated by nothing more acts and factories. In response Weir spent most of her time studying history on her own in the library. Tragically, she was not allowed to attend the classes that she wanted because her earlier scores on the GCE exam. Weir’s success makes her personal story a strong argument against both jargon-filled history writing and standardized testing.

When people tell the story of Henry VIII they quickly switch the subject of the story from the King to the six wives. It is an easy trap to fall into for the storyteller gets to tell six stories for the price of one. Weir avoids this trap easily because she already wrote a book about the six wives of the famous king, and therefore had already scratched that itch. This book, as the title suggests, is about King Henry VIII and men who worked for him. The wives are at best supportive characters, with exception maybe to Anne Boleyn, they are trotted out only when they are relevant to what is going on. This book keeps the light on the rich characters of Margaret Beaufort, Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas More, and Thomas Cromwell. The main focus, of course, is King Henry VIII and Weir’s successful in her goal to portray Henry, as he really was not how he is generally perceived.


(A young King Henry VIII)

King Henry VIII has been perceived as many things. He has been seen as bloodthirsty tyrant, a misogynistic manic, and a silly puppet that was controlled by the people around him. Weir portrays Henry as a man very much of control of things in his court, often playing factions against one another. Men who served the King and gained his confidence could gain great power, but they could fall just as far. Henry could be reasonable but in times of pressure or sickness his judgment could be swift and costly. A few times he would execute a person and later come to regret it.


(Henry's first 'prime minister' Cardinal Wolsey)

“Few could resist Henry’s charisma. ‘The King has a way of making every man feel that he is enjoying his special favor,’ wrote Thomas More. Erasmus called Henry ‘the man most full of heart.’ He would often put his arm around a man’s shoulder to put him at ease, although he ‘could not abide to have any man stare in his face when he talked with them.’ There are many examples of the kindness to others, as will be seen. Yet the King also had a spectacular and unpredictable temper and in a rage could be terrifying indeed. He was also very jealous of his houour, both as king and as a knight, and had the tenderest yet most flexible of consciences. His contemporaries thought him extraordinarily virtuous, a lover of goodness, truth, and justice—just as he was always to see himself.” (p.6)

In his life, Henry's primary rival, like all Kings of England, was the King of France. The first of these Henry had to deal with was King Louis XII. The elderly Louis XII had married Henry’s sister Mary, but he died shortly after. Then a much younger king, like Henry, came to the throne. King Francis I, who would be King Henry’s main competitor for both standing in Europe and in history*, came to the throne. Their relationship could be described as very odd.

“He ignored the advice of his lords, who thought he was putting himself at risk of some kind of treachery, and very early on Sunday 17 June, accompanied by only two gentlemen, went to Guisnes, where his brother monarch was sleeping. Henry woke to see the King of France standing over him, offering to serve as his valet and help him dress.” (p. 224)

Henry responded rather well to that incident, had it been myself I think I would have freaked out. Nevertheless, the two kings were competitors in almost every sense whether it be as kings or sportsmen.


(King Francis I of France, Henry VIII main rival.)

Henry VIII’s reign was of both achievement and revolutionary change. Henry’s regime would not only break away from the religious influence of Rome but it was full propaganda campaign to increase the monarchy’s power and tap into one of earliest forms of nationalism. During his reign his distrust of the nobility made him promote men to, and in, his inner circle on achievement as opposed to birth. His Privy Council was made up of the most talented individuals of the age. However, it was the establishment of the Church of England that would be his most lasting legacy.


(Thomas More, author of Utopia and friend of the King. He died for the 'crime' of not acknowledging the King as Head of the Church.)

“The symbolism of empire was again brought into play. A new coinage was issued bearing the image of the King as Roman Emperor, and a third Great Seal in the Renaissance style was made, featuring the King on an antique throne and bearing the title of Supreme Head; this image was designed by Lucas Horenbout, whose portraits of the King it greatly resembles. An imperial crown was added to the royal arms to signify that Henry recognized no higher power than his own save God. There was a deliberate revival of the cult of King Arthur, from whom the Tudors claimed to be descended, and who is said to have owned a seal proclaiming him ‘Arthur, Emperor of Britain and Gaul.’ Henry VIII, it was claimed, was merely reviving his ancestor’s title and dignity. It was also asserted that England’s sovereignty had for a thousand years been mistakenly subinfeudated to Rome by the King’s predecessors: now he had redeemed it.

No English king before Henry VIII had ever been so concerned to magnify and disseminate his public image. Under Cromwell’s auspices, there was a flood of tracts and pamphlets proclaiming Henry’s heroic virtues and moral superiority. Preachers, artists, craftsmen, writers, poets, playwrights, and historians such as Polydore Vergil were called upon to use their talents to advertise and glorify the New Monarchy. Propagandists such as Gardiner portrayed Henry VIII as semidivine, calling him ‘the image of God upon the Earth’ who ‘excelled in God’s sight among all other human creatures.’ A correspondent of Sir Anthony Browne declared that the King’s subjects ‘had not to do with a man but with a more excellent and divine estate,’ in whose presence one could not stand without trembling.

The effect of all this was to turn Henry into an imperious and dangerous autocrat who became mesmerized by his own legend.” (p.349)

(Thomas Cromwell, the man who did most of the work for Henry's reign. He died when he fell out of favor.)

Of course the wives have to be mentioned. Because the most pressing issue to Henry was the Great Matter, Henry’s relentless pursuit for an heir. When I was young, my mother once told me that Henry VIII was a crazy man who would kill his wife if she dare gave birth to a girl, and that is very silly because it was his fault if they were girls. Henry did not hate women he had a pretty good relationship with most women he knew. Henry obsession is understandable. His father had ended a civil war almost fifty years prior. Henry had no brothers and no woman had ever ruled in their own right, although their sons and grandsons could claim through them . Henry needed a son and it would be best for him to have two. He even thought of having his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy, the Duke of Richmond, proclaimed the heir by Parliament, but he died before it could be done.

In the pursuit of a son, he would break from Rome to divorce his first wife, and execute his second. His third wife Jane Seymour would provide him the son that he always wanted. In pursuit of a second son he would marry three more times and another wife would face execution. The wife that lived the longest, not Catherine Parr who was just his last, Anne of Cleves marriage to Henry did her a lot of good.

“Anne made the most of her independence, looking more ‘joyous’ than ever and putting on a new gown every day, ‘each more wonderful than the last’. In the years to come, she would establish a considerable reputation of a good hostess, and entertained many courtiers at Richmond. Rarely had a royal divorce had such a happy outcome.” (p.428)

(A King who had six Queens)

Although Henry was not a tyrant, as was Richard II, nor a puppet ruler. However he did have massive flaws. Henry would do revolutionary things but his method with dealing with opposition was the chopping block. He would allow himself to be persuaded to turn on dear friends, colleagues, and spouses. He would execute people and then later regret it. Henry allowed his greatest servant Thomas Cromwell to be killed, earlier he had allowed Thomas More to die for the sole crime of not acknowledging he, the King, as Head of the Church of England. (Ironically, Cromwell was one of the people who engineered More’s fall. What goes around comes around!)


On a technical note I would like to say that I really like Weir’s capitalization. I know that seems silly to obsess about, but I really prefer King of England to king of England; Duke of Richmond to duke of Richmond, and Prince of Wales to prince of Wales.

This is a great book about King Henry VIII, after you read it you feel like you know whom King Henry VIII was as a person. Weir writes history in way that allows the interesting to remain interesting.

*Although it could be argued that they are both out shown by Emperor Charles V.

{Video is from Keith Mitchel's THE SIX WIVES OF HENRY THE EIGHTH

UNLIKELY RULER

A review of S.B. Chrimes’ Henry VII (1972, original) (1999, my copy)

(Rating 4 of 5)

Henry VII has one of the more unlikely stories of any British monarch. Often times this king is overshadowed by his more (in)famous son, King Henry VIII. But King Henry VII has a greater tale to how he became king than his son does. Henry VIII was born a prince, becomes heir at the death of his older brother, and becomes King at nineteen at the death of his father. While Henry VII’s journey to the throne is much greater tale than simply inheritance, and is one of the least probable since William the Conqueror, this King Henry does not get the attention I think he deserves.


(King Henry VII)

Like the other rebel prince Henry, the Duke of Lancaster, the Earl of Richmond would have to led an army against an evil King Richard in order to claim the crown of England. However there are two key differences in their case. The first is King Henry IV captured Richard II and forced him to abdicate, where Henry VII had killed Richard III in battle. The second is Henry IV was, like his opponent, a grandson of King Edward III whose royalty was unquestionable. Henry VII was very distant in kinship with the crown. While even the sons of Richard, the Duke of York, had a clear claim to royalty, Henry was closer to French royal family than English one. Henry’s grandmother was King Henry V’s widow and a daughter of King Charles VI of France, but his English royal blood came from his mother’s family who were descended from John of Gaunt*, but through a line whose legitimacy was at best questionable.


(The evil King Richard III, who Henry must depose to take the crown)

Chrimes tells the story of this Welsh nobleman who never knew his father because he was born after his father had died. After King Edward IV takes back power from the pathetic King Henry VI, young Henry Tudor goes into exile with his uncle in France. In exile, Henry and his uncle Jasper plot a way to come power, which would not have been reached if King Richard III had not begin the demise of the York dynasty by undermining it from within. Richard deposed his nephew, King Edward V, and imprisoned him and his brother in the tower of London, never to be seen again. Henry Tudor would return at the head of an army and defeat Richard III and take the throne.


(Jasper Tudor, the uncle who raised his royal nephew when in exile)

From the point of Henry’s accession Chrimes’ story begins to turn dry. We began to lose narrative in favor of analysis. This is a shame because it loses a lot of drama that took place in King Henry VII’s reign. Henry VII had to deal various pretenders to the throne. These were pretenders not only in the sense that they just claimed to be King, but they claimed to be other people than who they really were. They would try to pretend they were the imprisoned Earl of Warwick or the late Duke of York. Henry VII would also become a diplomatic mastermind strengthening his position while not allowing his treasury to be wasted in long drawn out conflict.

One of ways this book change my outlook at King Henry’s reign was in his marriage to Elizabeth of York. I, like most, had always read deep political motivation in Henry taking the throne before marrying Princess Elizabeth. However Chimes makes the argument that there was really no other way for him to go about it.


(Elizabeth of York, begins life as the daughter of the King, briefly the sister of the King, then the niece of the King, ultimately the wife of the King, and post mortem the mother of the King.)

“Historians have often sought to make much of the fact that the marriage of Henry and Elizabeth of York, which he had solemnly promised to perform at the meeting in Rennes Cathedral on Christmas day, 1483, did not occur until some four months after Bosworth. Much play has been made of the idea that there was some profound political motive for getting himself crowned and his title declared in parliament before he entered into a matrimonial union with the Yorkist house. But it is difficult to see how he could have possibly proceeded any other way. He was necessarily obliged to ascend to the throne on the merits of his own claims, to which marriage to Elizabeth could add nothing.”

He also goes on to explain that Elizabeth was technically still a declared bastard by Parliament. Henry would have to undo this any he could only do that as King. King Henry VII also, as Henry Tudor, was attained person; Chimmes explains not once, but twice, in this book that Henry had to undo that and the only way he could achieve that was by becoming the King.

Chimmes wrote a very good book. It could have been better if it contained a tad bit more narrative a little less analysis. There are also some historical errors in book. They are little things like claiming King Charles II was never Prince of Wales and that King Henry VI was. Nevertheless, it is a very good book.

*Edward III’s son and Henry IV’s father.

VERY UNLOYAL BROTHERS

A review of Charles Ross’ Edward IV (1974 original) (1997 my copy)

(Rating 4 of 5)

There is an old phrase that goes ‘never hire two brothers to work for you, because they will always be more loyal to each other than they will ever be to you, and if they are not, who can trust a man who cannot trust his own brother?’ The sons of the Duke of York were apparently not very trust worthy. Over all King Edward IV seems to have been a very good king, but his family problems would show why the House of York would not reign long after its founder.


(Richard, the Duke of York. A man who thought he should be the king, was the father of two, yet his boys showed no family loyalty)

This book is interesting not only for what it does talk about but also for what it does not. Ross never deals with the allegations of Edward’s illegitimacy other than to mention that allegations exist. I personally believe that he was the Duke of York’s son, but you would think a biographer would discuss it even if only to point out how ridiculous the allegations were.

Unlike Henry IV, I do not think it would be right to describe Edward IV as a self-made king, even though he was not born destined for the crown and had to win it twice. At first he comes across as an aristocratic teenager with good pedigree that is placed on the throne by powers greater than he, led by the Earl of Warwick. However, much like Emperor Claudius of Rome, once in power he clearly knows how to use it. Far from being Warwick’s pawn he is a true king with his own ideas how to do things. Although he loses his throne in 1470 he comes right back the next year to recover it and from then on is as strong as ever.


(The Kingmaker, the evil Earl of Warwick)


(Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville would turn the Earl of Warwick against him)

King Edward IV’s son-in-law, King Henry VII, is the king most accredited with creating a very powerful English monarchy; the reason Henry is able to do so is by respecting and adding on to the system that had already been established by Edward. Although Edward's life is adventurous, in some ways, he pales in comparison with the warrior kings Edward III and Henry V; however I think Edward IV’s greatness is the fact that he did not involve his kingdom in any long foreign wars that would tact the English resources into poverty. In other words, unlike some other Kings of England he did not try foolishly prove to the world he was the rightful King of France. King Edward stayed at home and tried to improve his own kingdom. His ideas were so productive that Henry Tudor would go on to mimic them.

“To rescue the crown from financial abyss into which the Lancastrians had plunged it was no mean achievement. To die solvent was something no other English king had achieved for more than two hundred years. Henry VII had the great advantage of being able to build upon the foundations laid by his father-in-law. Indeed, the best testimony to the quality of Edward’s financial policies is the degree to which the shrewd and calculating Henry held firm to them.”(p.386)

His main problem seems to be with his own family. The reason the House of York was unable to entrench itself for the long term had to do with in-fighting amongst the its members. Edward had two younger brothers when he was king: Prince George, the Duke of Clarence and Prince Richard, the Duke of Gloucester. The elder of the two (Clarence) tried multiple times to usurp his older brother and was many times forgiven, but he tried one rebellion too much and was executed under Edward’s orders. The fact he put his own brother to death—no matter how justified—would soil his reputation. The younger seemly loyal brother was an asset to his rule and Edward trusted him. But the evil Richard would betray that trust after Edward dies, by deposing his brother's elder son and having both of his sons murdered. King Richard III would blacken the name of his lost brother who ruled England effectively for twenty years. Richard’s plans would unravel as Henry Tudor, who increases his own legitimate standing by marring the eldest daughter of King Edward IV, overthrows him.


(Doomed boys, the sons of Edward IV, King Edward V and his brother Richard, the Duke of York, murdered by their uncle's orders)


(Richard III, deposes his nephew to seize the throne but his reign is cut short by Henry Tudor)

This is a great book detailing the events of the brutal Wars of the Roses the brought the English monarchy to great highs and lows in very short periods of time. The reader is left thinking that if only Edward had lived one more decade he would have been able to put his own son, King Edward V, securely on the throne and history might have taken a far different turn. Edward IV is a tale of triumph and tragedy.

{video is from David Starkey's Monarchy}