What do you think?
Rate this book
The English Monarchs
King Stephen
This compelling new biography provides the most authoritative picture yet of King Stephen, whose reign (1135–1154), with its “nineteen long winters” of civil war, made his name synonymous with failed leadership. After years of work on the sources, Edmund King shows with rare clarity the strengths and weaknesses of the monarch. Keeping Stephen at the forefront of his account, the author also chronicles the activities of key family members and associates whose loyal support sustained Stephen’s kingship. In 1135 the popular Stephen was elected king against the claims of the empress Matilda and her sons. But by 1153, Stephen had lost control over Normandy and other important regions, England had lost prestige, and the weakened king was forced to cede his family’s right to succession. A rich narrative covering the drama of a tumultuous reign, this book focuses well-deserved attention on a king who lost control of his destiny.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
5 people are currently reading
304 people want to read
About the author
Edmund King
46 books4 followersEdmund King is Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at the University of Sheffield. He took his bachelor and doctoral degrees at the University of Cambridge, where he was a student of M. M. Postan. He joined the History department at Sheffield in 1966 and has held a chair since 1989.
He has held visiting fellowships at the Huntington Library, USA (where he was a Fulbright Scholar), and at All Souls College, Oxford, and he has taught also at the universities of Connecticut and Michigan in the USA.
He has held visiting fellowships at the Huntington Library, USA (where he was a Fulbright Scholar), and at All Souls College, Oxford, and he has taught also at the universities of Connecticut and Michigan in the USA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 3, 2011
This is the third of the English Monarch series that I have read and it is the best so far. While clearly academic, King uses modern analogies to make the book accessible to the lay reader. What would be dry facts in another book, makes for compelling political drama here. He deftly handles a large cast of characters in a convoluted period in English history. Everyone that he writes about is distinctive. He is decidedly neutral about Robert Fitz Roy and the The Empress, but manages to defend Geoffrey De Mandeville and Henry, Bishop of Winchester. My only slight complaint is that he did not dwell too much on William of Ypres and this would have been the book to do it. You also see the germination of discord between the crown and the church. A point of contention that flared up in Henry II's reign with Becket.
This book is surprisingly not "pro" Stephen. The author lets the facts speak for themselves. Stephen was an affable man that never shied from battle but could not make the difficult decisions that his position required. The result was men who took advantage of him or flat out rebelled. In the last chapter, King finally weighs in with his opinion about Stephen. The hypothesis is brilliant. This is the first of the series I look forward to reading again.
This book is surprisingly not "pro" Stephen. The author lets the facts speak for themselves. Stephen was an affable man that never shied from battle but could not make the difficult decisions that his position required. The result was men who took advantage of him or flat out rebelled. In the last chapter, King finally weighs in with his opinion about Stephen. The hypothesis is brilliant. This is the first of the series I look forward to reading again.
Read
August 22, 2022One of the hallmarks of the Yale English Monarchs series is their selection of top-flight specialists to write biographies of their subjects. This is no less true for Stephen, the biography for whom represented the culmination of Edmund King’s long career studying his reign. Over the course of four decades, not only did King contribute an impressive amount of scholarship on the period – much of which was reflected in the notes and bibliographies of most of the previous books that I’ve read for Stephen up to this point – but he also taught an advanced course on him throughout much of his academic career which, as he states in his acknowledgements, helped him shape the book. As such, he seems not just the logical choice to contribute a volume to a series that strives for definitive studies, but an inevitable one.
For the rest of my review, click on the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2022/...
For the rest of my review, click on the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2022/...
April 24, 2021
King Stephen is an interesting historical figure just because of the almost, stop-gap feel he gives to his role. It always intrigued me that a man with living sons, would be pressured into granting his kingdom to a more distant relative. Politics is fascinating and Edmund King does an excellent job of presenting the maneuverings which led to the take-over by Henry Fitz Empress.
Writing from primary sources is never easy and from as distant as these must be --in varied languages of ‘old’ form-- additionally challenging. King is to be applauded for the variety that he incorporates. The writing can be a bit distracting (some sentence structures forced me to re-read a couple of times) and often the story of Stephen was detoured much too far. Also, sometimes it was difficult to tell if the author was being facetious by the sudden use of more modern language or what. An example would be on page 68 where King quotes Stephen’s almonry grant for the good of his and family members souls. He then concludes by saying “The king was confident in the power of prayer.” In 1135 most Christians were confident in the power of prayer. Further comment on the writing, commendable, though to some readers it could be tedious, is the extensive recitation of those figures who witnessed charters, were mentioned as followers, etc.
As for the ending, I enjoyed the analytical nature of the final pages but as a biography of one subject, it is best to conclude with them rather than with others (as King did here with Matilda, Stephen’s wife, and Henry Fitz Empress taking center stage). Although, no person is an island, we are all the creation of others by their influence and by outside forces, King is correct when he concludes that Stephen was not his own man. Taking the time to explain the role of his brother, Henry of Winchester and Stephen’s wife, was time well spent. And it was here at the end of the book that King makes the distinction that Empress Matilda was the successor but her son, Henry, was heir. That certainly could have been explained further and in a more pertinent segment of the text for the clarity of the reader. If King was waiting to ensure that was credited as his analytical interpretation it was almost wasted.
Writing from primary sources is never easy and from as distant as these must be --in varied languages of ‘old’ form-- additionally challenging. King is to be applauded for the variety that he incorporates. The writing can be a bit distracting (some sentence structures forced me to re-read a couple of times) and often the story of Stephen was detoured much too far. Also, sometimes it was difficult to tell if the author was being facetious by the sudden use of more modern language or what. An example would be on page 68 where King quotes Stephen’s almonry grant for the good of his and family members souls. He then concludes by saying “The king was confident in the power of prayer.” In 1135 most Christians were confident in the power of prayer. Further comment on the writing, commendable, though to some readers it could be tedious, is the extensive recitation of those figures who witnessed charters, were mentioned as followers, etc.
As for the ending, I enjoyed the analytical nature of the final pages but as a biography of one subject, it is best to conclude with them rather than with others (as King did here with Matilda, Stephen’s wife, and Henry Fitz Empress taking center stage). Although, no person is an island, we are all the creation of others by their influence and by outside forces, King is correct when he concludes that Stephen was not his own man. Taking the time to explain the role of his brother, Henry of Winchester and Stephen’s wife, was time well spent. And it was here at the end of the book that King makes the distinction that Empress Matilda was the successor but her son, Henry, was heir. That certainly could have been explained further and in a more pertinent segment of the text for the clarity of the reader. If King was waiting to ensure that was credited as his analytical interpretation it was almost wasted.
July 23, 2020
This is a very fair and n depth biography that is scrupulous in it's treatment not merely of Stephen but of the times he lived in. This may well be one of the best acadaemic works on the period, if I may quote the famous bit of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, "when Christ and his Saints slept."
Though Professor King necessarily concentrates on the acts and character of King Stephen he also shows his complete mastery of the primary sources incuding a great deal of contemporary charters to provide an in depth and highy credible time line for this disastrous reign. He provides an interesting analysis of the economy and coinage. The confusion surrounding Henry I's succession is well describedand analysed. He assesses the rise of castle culture and the equally flawed personalities of the Empress Maude, Here was a woman who could have had everything but when she was on the very brink of total victory in 1141 let it all fall from her hands. As Professor King himself says "the situation requiredstatesmanship and a willingness to forgive and move on. Unfortunately neither of those traits were in the Empress' character." Also to fall beneath the judgement is Stephen's over ambitious (and far more machiavellian) brother Henry of Winchester The unhelpful role of the Church, who, in their efforts to end the anarchy merely prolonged and increased it.
We get analyses of Stephen's many failures and few successes. He is charitable in his treatment of one who perhaps more than Charles I could legitimately be described as "So good a man, so poor a King". His piety, innate ability to get on with people and his generally kind character are all brought to the fore in this highly academic work.. We are also shown his disastrous inability to pick the right response to a crisis. When he needed to be merciless he was charitable and when he needed to show clemency he was invariably ruthless. Professor King is probably correct to assess him as coming up short but he was better than many think.
A good read but it is very academic and perhaps not the best introduction to the Anarchy.
Though Professor King necessarily concentrates on the acts and character of King Stephen he also shows his complete mastery of the primary sources incuding a great deal of contemporary charters to provide an in depth and highy credible time line for this disastrous reign. He provides an interesting analysis of the economy and coinage. The confusion surrounding Henry I's succession is well describedand analysed. He assesses the rise of castle culture and the equally flawed personalities of the Empress Maude, Here was a woman who could have had everything but when she was on the very brink of total victory in 1141 let it all fall from her hands. As Professor King himself says "the situation requiredstatesmanship and a willingness to forgive and move on. Unfortunately neither of those traits were in the Empress' character." Also to fall beneath the judgement is Stephen's over ambitious (and far more machiavellian) brother Henry of Winchester The unhelpful role of the Church, who, in their efforts to end the anarchy merely prolonged and increased it.
We get analyses of Stephen's many failures and few successes. He is charitable in his treatment of one who perhaps more than Charles I could legitimately be described as "So good a man, so poor a King". His piety, innate ability to get on with people and his generally kind character are all brought to the fore in this highly academic work.. We are also shown his disastrous inability to pick the right response to a crisis. When he needed to be merciless he was charitable and when he needed to show clemency he was invariably ruthless. Professor King is probably correct to assess him as coming up short but he was better than many think.
A good read but it is very academic and perhaps not the best introduction to the Anarchy.
October 30, 2015
As Always a excellent biography in the Yale English Monarchs Series. I found the book very enlightening, as although England was immersed in a disastrous Civil War with Henry I legitimate daughter Matilda for most of his Reign, the work showed(at least to me) that the King was anything a m,an before his time, as he always sought the most 'peaceful' solutions when unfortunately what was both required and lacking was a strong hand! Excellent!
August 12, 2016
A modern appraisal of an important period in English history, the reign of King Stephen. It's an academic book, though at the more accessible end of such. It's an interesting, well written study of a man who failed at what he attempted to do as his adult life's work, who came between two of the most successful medieval English kings.
June 26, 2022
This is a biography of King Stephen, gather from various sources and very well researched.
After Henry I's death, there was no clear successor. Stephen, his nephew, managed to convince, seemingly though charm and largess, the nobility that he was the man for the job.
Henry's daughter Matilda, married to a German emperor at the time, disagreed, and what followed was a long period of instability as the two factions sorted out their differences.
Matilda, never succeeded becoming queen of England, and Stephen never succeeded in cementing his line. Upon his death, Henry II, the son of Matilda, took the throne, and an important lesson was (sort of) learned - always make sure you secure your legacy before you die.
As with most, proper, historical accounts, this is quite dry, there are 1000s of references to keep even the most obsessive lay history buff happy, and King (e.g. Edmund, the author) keeps it as interesting as he can. It does get confusing at times as there are a lot of people called Henry, and a lot of people call Matilda to keep track of. These Normans it seems are not ones for original names.
Any case, I enjoyed the slog through this tome, and will probably feel the urge to check out another of the Yale History of English Monarchs series at some point.
After Henry I's death, there was no clear successor. Stephen, his nephew, managed to convince, seemingly though charm and largess, the nobility that he was the man for the job.
Henry's daughter Matilda, married to a German emperor at the time, disagreed, and what followed was a long period of instability as the two factions sorted out their differences.
Matilda, never succeeded becoming queen of England, and Stephen never succeeded in cementing his line. Upon his death, Henry II, the son of Matilda, took the throne, and an important lesson was (sort of) learned - always make sure you secure your legacy before you die.
As with most, proper, historical accounts, this is quite dry, there are 1000s of references to keep even the most obsessive lay history buff happy, and King (e.g. Edmund, the author) keeps it as interesting as he can. It does get confusing at times as there are a lot of people called Henry, and a lot of people call Matilda to keep track of. These Normans it seems are not ones for original names.
Any case, I enjoyed the slog through this tome, and will probably feel the urge to check out another of the Yale History of English Monarchs series at some point.
November 1, 2020
Very well executed biography of the medieval English king Stephen, although I was not impressed with the man himself, who seemed wishy-washy and ineffectual. (He seems to have been a pleasant and kind person, though, just not necessarily well-suited for medieval kingship.) The author does an admirable job of bringing Stephen and the people around him -- most noticeably his rival for the throne Matilda and his ambitious brother Henry -- to life given the paucity of sources for medieval lives.
February 7, 2023
To begin with, it's a sea of names and places and people named for places. This book is very detailed, but not especially gripping. The prose gets lost amongst the detail and the quotes of original material. I learnt a lot from it, but I never really felt enthusiastic about reading it.
I think I'd have preferred a book about King Edmund by Stephen King, instead.
I think I'd have preferred a book about King Edmund by Stephen King, instead.
August 30, 2020
Excellent biography of a little known character in British history written in a more approachable and interesting way than many biographies of early English monarchs which often end up as endless lists of charters and quotes from the different versions of the chronicle. Well worth a read and sets the stage well for Henry 2 and his successors.
December 31, 2014
King Stephen
Edmund King
Read it in Hardcover at 384 pages including Biblio+Appendix+maps
The time when Henry I died without direct heir and before Henry II, his grandson, could attain the throne; England was in the grip of civil war. Stephen, a trusted and well-loved nephew assumed the throne in 1135 and held in contention for which the chroniclers of the time have labelled, The Anarchy. Mr. King follows Stephen from an early Count in Henry's court and his early administration of Mortain including his successes and failures to the death of Henry and the assumption of the crown. At every turn civil war was waiting and Stephen seems to have lost the heart to fight effectively in a conflict that was slowly taking it's measure on the entirety of England and eventually culminating in the loss of his eldest son, thus breaking his will to fight. Peace was eventually attained and Stephen settled that Henry II should gain the Crown upon his death which was accepted and essentially brought the end of Stephens individual reign.
Inevitably the chaos of his reign is far more known than his achievements, and it's interesting to imagine what kind of King Stephen would have been if the majority wasn't preoccupied with fighting his niece and the factions that supported her sons claim. Mr. King also paints a very vivid picture of a man in love with celebrations and exploits with audience but perhaps came down upon his vassals too hard when he should have been soft and too soft when he should have been hard widely undermining his rule and antagonizing those supporters who were wagering the existence of their dynasties on the success of Stephen.
Much like the rest of the Yale English Monarch series, this is meticulously researched and well written. King Stephen has the benefit, unlike many of his associates in the series, to be one of the more modern additions to the series. This addition was published in 2010 and the language is a lot easier to digest than the other works I have consumed, requires less of a dictionary, and does have some more contemporary sentence structure. With that said though, this is a textbook on a man that lived nearly a thousand years ago, approach it with caution.
Highly suggested for anyone interested in High-Middle.
Edmund King
Read it in Hardcover at 384 pages including Biblio+Appendix+maps
The time when Henry I died without direct heir and before Henry II, his grandson, could attain the throne; England was in the grip of civil war. Stephen, a trusted and well-loved nephew assumed the throne in 1135 and held in contention for which the chroniclers of the time have labelled, The Anarchy. Mr. King follows Stephen from an early Count in Henry's court and his early administration of Mortain including his successes and failures to the death of Henry and the assumption of the crown. At every turn civil war was waiting and Stephen seems to have lost the heart to fight effectively in a conflict that was slowly taking it's measure on the entirety of England and eventually culminating in the loss of his eldest son, thus breaking his will to fight. Peace was eventually attained and Stephen settled that Henry II should gain the Crown upon his death which was accepted and essentially brought the end of Stephens individual reign.
Inevitably the chaos of his reign is far more known than his achievements, and it's interesting to imagine what kind of King Stephen would have been if the majority wasn't preoccupied with fighting his niece and the factions that supported her sons claim. Mr. King also paints a very vivid picture of a man in love with celebrations and exploits with audience but perhaps came down upon his vassals too hard when he should have been soft and too soft when he should have been hard widely undermining his rule and antagonizing those supporters who were wagering the existence of their dynasties on the success of Stephen.
Much like the rest of the Yale English Monarch series, this is meticulously researched and well written. King Stephen has the benefit, unlike many of his associates in the series, to be one of the more modern additions to the series. This addition was published in 2010 and the language is a lot easier to digest than the other works I have consumed, requires less of a dictionary, and does have some more contemporary sentence structure. With that said though, this is a textbook on a man that lived nearly a thousand years ago, approach it with caution.
Highly suggested for anyone interested in High-Middle.
October 9, 2019
'Here, honed in correspondence and heightened in adversary, is the reference to the reign of Henry 1 as the measure of good order, and of legitimacy."
A sentence taken at random. It's a well written book. Although he does the necessary who was with whom and where and when, following the charters, listening to the different chroniclers of the reign, King keeps the narrative moving.
I think I've now read all the Yale Monarchs from Cnut to John, and this is probably the one I'd recommend as the most enjoyable to read, although Richard 1 gives it a good run for that title.
King is very comfortable with his sources. And for most of the book he steps back and lets the story tell itself. He does at times offer opinion as fact, as when he claims he knows what the magnates wanted as the 'peace process' unfolded, and occasionally the characterisation and explanation of motivation leaves a few questions begging, but these are done lightly and aren't allowed to get in the way of the evidence.
King leaves his final summing up to the last few sentences.
He [Stephen] was acting a part. And never with any real conviction. Henry of Huntingdon imagined the king, before the battle of Lincoln, as giving his lines to Baldwin Fitz Gilbert 'since he himself lacked a commanding voice'. This may stand as an image of Stepen's Kingship. He never made his voice heard.'
This comes at the end of the final chapter, called 'Appraisal'. It is indicative of the strength of the book that such a comment seems not only appropriate but completely justified.
A sentence taken at random. It's a well written book. Although he does the necessary who was with whom and where and when, following the charters, listening to the different chroniclers of the reign, King keeps the narrative moving.
I think I've now read all the Yale Monarchs from Cnut to John, and this is probably the one I'd recommend as the most enjoyable to read, although Richard 1 gives it a good run for that title.
King is very comfortable with his sources. And for most of the book he steps back and lets the story tell itself. He does at times offer opinion as fact, as when he claims he knows what the magnates wanted as the 'peace process' unfolded, and occasionally the characterisation and explanation of motivation leaves a few questions begging, but these are done lightly and aren't allowed to get in the way of the evidence.
King leaves his final summing up to the last few sentences.
He [Stephen] was acting a part. And never with any real conviction. Henry of Huntingdon imagined the king, before the battle of Lincoln, as giving his lines to Baldwin Fitz Gilbert 'since he himself lacked a commanding voice'. This may stand as an image of Stepen's Kingship. He never made his voice heard.'
This comes at the end of the final chapter, called 'Appraisal'. It is indicative of the strength of the book that such a comment seems not only appropriate but completely justified.
specially-requested
March 31, 2014
January 5, 2013
A good biography of King Stephen. Not completely chronological, with discussions of key persons of influence during Stephen's ascension and fall.
September 11, 2021
An interesting account of this often glossed over king who ruled the time when Christ and his Angels slept.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews