What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Charles I, king of England, waged a civil war (1642-9) that cost the lives of one in ten Englishmen, but in 1649 Parliament was hard put to find a lawyer with the skill and daring to prosecute the defeated King, who claimed to be above the law. The man they briefed was the radical lawyer John Cooke. His Puritan conscience, political vision, and love of civil liberties gave him the courage to bring the King's trial to its dramatic conclusion: the creation of the English Republic. Cooke would pay dearly for role in the trial. Charles I was found guilty and beheaded, but eleven years later Cooke himself was arrested, tried, and brutally executed at the hands of Charles II.
Geoffrey Robertson, an internationally renowned human rights lawyer, provides a vivid new reading of the tumultuous Civil War years, exposing long-hidden truths: that the King was guilty as charged, that his execution was necessary to establish the sovereignty of Parliament, that the regicide trials were rigged and their victims should be seen as national heroes.
John Cooke sacrificed his own life to make tyranny a crime. His trial of Charles I, the first trial of a head of state for waging war on his own people, became a forerunner of the trials of Augusto Pinochet, Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein. This is a superb work of history that casts a revelatory light on some of the most important issues of our time.
Geoffrey Robertson, an internationally renowned human rights lawyer, provides a vivid new reading of the tumultuous Civil War years, exposing long-hidden truths: that the King was guilty as charged, that his execution was necessary to establish the sovereignty of Parliament, that the regicide trials were rigged and their victims should be seen as national heroes.
John Cooke sacrificed his own life to make tyranny a crime. His trial of Charles I, the first trial of a head of state for waging war on his own people, became a forerunner of the trials of Augusto Pinochet, Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein. This is a superb work of history that casts a revelatory light on some of the most important issues of our time.
429 pages, Hardcover
First published October 31, 2005
47 people are currently reading
749 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Robertson
57 books85 followersGeoffrey Ronald Robertson QC (born 30 September 1946) is a human rights barrister, academic, author and broadcaster. He holds dual Australian and British citizenship.
Robertson is a founder and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers. He serves as a Master of the Bench at the Middle Temple, a recorder, and visiting professor at Queen Mary, University of London.
Robertson is a founder and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers. He serves as a Master of the Bench at the Middle Temple, a recorder, and visiting professor at Queen Mary, University of London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
February 23, 2022
I wonder how many people know the name of the man who sent Charles I to the scaffold in 1649?
I didn't before I read this book and that's a scandal.
John Cooke is the man's name. Born in humble surroundings in rural Leicestershire, John Cooke became a lawyer and was the man into whose hands history's most fateful brief was delivered by parliamentary messenger on Wednesday 10th January 1649.
John Cooke was given the brief because almost all the other lawyers had run away or suddenly become ill.
Cooke accepted it because he believed that an advocate must, once a fee has been paid, accept any case that is capable of argument. This principle - now called the 'cab-rank rule' - is the basis for a barrister's right to practise.
I'm sure everyone knows the outcome of the trial. It set a precedent because it was the first modern legal argument against tyranny - based on a universal right to punish a tyrant who denies democracy and civil and religious liberty to his people or who bears command responsibility for a 'crime against humanity'.
What sets Cooke aside for me is the ideas he had in the 1640s: he argued for the abolition of the death penalty other than for murder and treason; the end of imprisonment for debt; the abolition of Latin and Norman French in the courts. He was the first to claim that poverty was a major cause of crime, so offenders should be put on probation, and was the first to suggest that the state should provide a national health service and a system of legal aid for the poor.
Cooke was a man of courage who took the tyrannicide brief knowing full well that if there was a restoration of the monarchy, the royalists would come for him. In 1660, he didn't run away when they did.
I didn't before I read this book and that's a scandal.
John Cooke is the man's name. Born in humble surroundings in rural Leicestershire, John Cooke became a lawyer and was the man into whose hands history's most fateful brief was delivered by parliamentary messenger on Wednesday 10th January 1649.
John Cooke was given the brief because almost all the other lawyers had run away or suddenly become ill.
Cooke accepted it because he believed that an advocate must, once a fee has been paid, accept any case that is capable of argument. This principle - now called the 'cab-rank rule' - is the basis for a barrister's right to practise.
I'm sure everyone knows the outcome of the trial. It set a precedent because it was the first modern legal argument against tyranny - based on a universal right to punish a tyrant who denies democracy and civil and religious liberty to his people or who bears command responsibility for a 'crime against humanity'.
What sets Cooke aside for me is the ideas he had in the 1640s: he argued for the abolition of the death penalty other than for murder and treason; the end of imprisonment for debt; the abolition of Latin and Norman French in the courts. He was the first to claim that poverty was a major cause of crime, so offenders should be put on probation, and was the first to suggest that the state should provide a national health service and a system of legal aid for the poor.
Cooke was a man of courage who took the tyrannicide brief knowing full well that if there was a restoration of the monarchy, the royalists would come for him. In 1660, he didn't run away when they did.
February 17, 2015
John Cooke was the most brilliant lawyer you've never heard of.
He was centuries ahead of his time in the legal reforms he advocated. He pioneered a prisoner's right not to incriminate himself, urged attorneys to not take excessive fees, petitioned for statutes and law reports be written in English instead of Norman French (!), and most critically, he undertook unpopular causes.
Very unpopular causes.
When other barristers fled London, rather than be saddled with the task of prosecuting King Charles I, Cooke accepted the brief. It led to Charles I's death and later, during the Restoration, Cooke's own.
Cooke's argument is that no man is above the law. The king's duty is to exercise his power for the public trust, and if breaches that trust, he may be prosecuted. In Charles's case, he made war against his own subjects (repeatedly), broke agreements, and caused the death of thousands. He countenanced war crimes under his standard, and should be called to account for them.
This is shockingly revolutionary stuff. The real crime is that Cooke isn't venerated as the brilliant legal mind that he was. I am leery of making heroes, but John Cooke is my new legal hero. And his life was full of good acts. He was devout and kind. When serving as a judge in Ireland, he angered the landlords by finding more often for the tenants and reforming the courts (changes that lasted only a few years). In the end, after a circus trial, he went to his death with grace and dignity.
Geoffrey Robertson is a prominent international attorney and UN war-crimes judge, and he does a masterful job of weaving Cooke's life and legal legacy with the crazy politics of the English Civil War and the Restoration. I love a writer who can not only write seemingly effortless prose but who also makes me run for the dictionary.
Robertson ends the book with a call for the creation of a UN convention against tyranny, which would allow invalidation of national constitutions which give immunity to heads of state for actions in office. Now, wouldn't that be something?
He was centuries ahead of his time in the legal reforms he advocated. He pioneered a prisoner's right not to incriminate himself, urged attorneys to not take excessive fees, petitioned for statutes and law reports be written in English instead of Norman French (!), and most critically, he undertook unpopular causes.
Very unpopular causes.
When other barristers fled London, rather than be saddled with the task of prosecuting King Charles I, Cooke accepted the brief. It led to Charles I's death and later, during the Restoration, Cooke's own.
Cooke's argument is that no man is above the law. The king's duty is to exercise his power for the public trust, and if breaches that trust, he may be prosecuted. In Charles's case, he made war against his own subjects (repeatedly), broke agreements, and caused the death of thousands. He countenanced war crimes under his standard, and should be called to account for them.
This is shockingly revolutionary stuff. The real crime is that Cooke isn't venerated as the brilliant legal mind that he was. I am leery of making heroes, but John Cooke is my new legal hero. And his life was full of good acts. He was devout and kind. When serving as a judge in Ireland, he angered the landlords by finding more often for the tenants and reforming the courts (changes that lasted only a few years). In the end, after a circus trial, he went to his death with grace and dignity.
Geoffrey Robertson is a prominent international attorney and UN war-crimes judge, and he does a masterful job of weaving Cooke's life and legal legacy with the crazy politics of the English Civil War and the Restoration. I love a writer who can not only write seemingly effortless prose but who also makes me run for the dictionary.
Robertson ends the book with a call for the creation of a UN convention against tyranny, which would allow invalidation of national constitutions which give immunity to heads of state for actions in office. Now, wouldn't that be something?
February 17, 2009
"The Tyrannicide Brief" is a powerful account of the climax of the English Civil War, the trial and execution of Charles I, and its reversal in the Restoration by the trial and execution of Charles' prosecutors and judges. It has extreme relevance today, with its lesson that a head of state must not be above the law and must answer for his or her crimes. The abrogation of Charles' trial by the Restoration obscured this lesson; the story points up the fact that the English Civil War is at least as much unfinished business as our own. Robertson vindicates Charles' prosecutor, John Cooke, as a pioneer for the principle of leaders' responsibility, and insists that the trial of Charles was legally sound, unlike that of Cooke, which he calls a travesty.
Another lesson of the book is the extreme barbarity of English executions of commoners: Robertson's account of the routine drawing and quartering of the corpses is revolting, and I can only wonder whether people then could pay any heed to works like Sophocles' Ajax or Antigone in their insistence for the decent treatment of the remains of all, even those considered criminals or outcasts. The dismembered corpses of Cooke and the other prosecutors were posted in prominent places in London or at the gates of the city. I recommend the book strongly.
Another lesson of the book is the extreme barbarity of English executions of commoners: Robertson's account of the routine drawing and quartering of the corpses is revolting, and I can only wonder whether people then could pay any heed to works like Sophocles' Ajax or Antigone in their insistence for the decent treatment of the remains of all, even those considered criminals or outcasts. The dismembered corpses of Cooke and the other prosecutors were posted in prominent places in London or at the gates of the city. I recommend the book strongly.
March 16, 2008
This is a book about the execution of Charles I from a legal perspective. If you can suspend whatever bias you may have about the execution itself, this is a good analysis of the legal issues involved.
I don't always agree with Geoffrey Robertson, I like the way he writes and found this book a great addition to my Stuart history shelf.
I'm on a Stuart history jag at the moment: revisiting some old books, reading some new.
I don't always agree with Geoffrey Robertson, I like the way he writes and found this book a great addition to my Stuart history shelf.
I'm on a Stuart history jag at the moment: revisiting some old books, reading some new.
February 29, 2020
I thought I'd be reading a boring book about an interesting topic. I was wrong: this book was great. There should be a movie of this book.
December 23, 2016
This book is simply magnificent.
I've known how good it was for quite a while, of course. I first stumbled across Geoffrey Robertson's scholarship on John Cooke and the trial of Charles I back in first-year law, where Justice Kirby and Robertson, QC's disagreeing speeches on that trial were required reading. My interest whetted by Robertson's essay, I looked him up and found that subsequent to delivering the speech, he'd gone on to write a book investigating the legal foundations for the trial as well as the life of John Cooke, the humble barrister who had prosecuted the King.
I only got around to reading the first third of the book before I had to return it to the library, but by then I knew that this was an immensely important history book examining how a small group of sincere Christians in the seventeenth century stood up against tyranny and pioneered a multitude of political and legal rights and privileges which we would never dream of doing without today (equality before the law? The right to remain silent? Jury nullification? Command responsibility of a head of state for war crimes?). I knew I needed to own, read, and re-read this book; and I've now done that for the first time.
In many cases, the liberties pioneered by John Cooke and his fellow commonwealthsmen and then brutally stamped out at the Restoration by a vindictive Charles II would not be restored for two hundred or three hundred years; some have yet to be recognised, while others (jury nullification, for instance) are practically kept secret by modern governments.
Granted, there were a number of areas where I disagreed with Robertson. He's unusually unsympathetic and tone-deaf toward the Calvinist faith of his hero, to a degree that almost comes across as unprofessional in a historian. His evaluation of some of the legal questions involved in Charles I's trial seemed based on pragmatism rather than correctness. And his solution to the problem of tyranny is not to educate and empower ordinary people to resist and prosecute their tyrants, but to set up international law tribunals, run by the (arguably tyrannical themselves) United Nations.
Apart from these reservations, I would thoroughly recommend this book. Apart from anything else, it shows how uncannily some of the modern R2K interpretations of Romans 13 approximate the Stuarts' divine right of kings doctrine, and for theonomists, it's a fascinating case study of how an application of the doctrine of the lesser magistrates might begin well but run aground on the shoals of manmade law. (The Long Parliament was deadlocked between the more liberal Independent MPs, and the Presbyterian MPs who put conformity to the Solemn League and Covenant above political or religious liberty; yet the tax burden of the standing New Model Army and the unscriptural prohibitions, eg of Christmas, exasperated the people of England so much that they would have elected representatives who would have reinstated the King and his outrageous tyrannies; it was because of this catch-22 that Fairfax ordered Pride to purge the Parliament of its Presbyterian MPs rather than call new elections).
Some quotes...
"We are not traitors or murderers or fantatics but true Christians and good commonwealthsmen, fixed and constant in the principles of sanctity, truth, justice and mercy, which the Parliament and army declared and engaged for, and to that noble principle of preferring the universality before particularity. We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than freedom." - John Cooke, letter from prison, September 1660
In these words, Cooke wrote the epitaph for the lawyers and colonels, the Puritans and the preachers who had dared to act on the belief that no man was above the law.
[...]
The axe that beheaded Charles confirmed at its stroke the principles of parliamentary sovereignty, judicial independence, no taxation without representation, no detention without trial - as GM Trevelyan concludes: 'Never perhaps in any century have such rapid advances been made towards freedom.'
I've known how good it was for quite a while, of course. I first stumbled across Geoffrey Robertson's scholarship on John Cooke and the trial of Charles I back in first-year law, where Justice Kirby and Robertson, QC's disagreeing speeches on that trial were required reading. My interest whetted by Robertson's essay, I looked him up and found that subsequent to delivering the speech, he'd gone on to write a book investigating the legal foundations for the trial as well as the life of John Cooke, the humble barrister who had prosecuted the King.
I only got around to reading the first third of the book before I had to return it to the library, but by then I knew that this was an immensely important history book examining how a small group of sincere Christians in the seventeenth century stood up against tyranny and pioneered a multitude of political and legal rights and privileges which we would never dream of doing without today (equality before the law? The right to remain silent? Jury nullification? Command responsibility of a head of state for war crimes?). I knew I needed to own, read, and re-read this book; and I've now done that for the first time.
In many cases, the liberties pioneered by John Cooke and his fellow commonwealthsmen and then brutally stamped out at the Restoration by a vindictive Charles II would not be restored for two hundred or three hundred years; some have yet to be recognised, while others (jury nullification, for instance) are practically kept secret by modern governments.
Granted, there were a number of areas where I disagreed with Robertson. He's unusually unsympathetic and tone-deaf toward the Calvinist faith of his hero, to a degree that almost comes across as unprofessional in a historian. His evaluation of some of the legal questions involved in Charles I's trial seemed based on pragmatism rather than correctness. And his solution to the problem of tyranny is not to educate and empower ordinary people to resist and prosecute their tyrants, but to set up international law tribunals, run by the (arguably tyrannical themselves) United Nations.
Apart from these reservations, I would thoroughly recommend this book. Apart from anything else, it shows how uncannily some of the modern R2K interpretations of Romans 13 approximate the Stuarts' divine right of kings doctrine, and for theonomists, it's a fascinating case study of how an application of the doctrine of the lesser magistrates might begin well but run aground on the shoals of manmade law. (The Long Parliament was deadlocked between the more liberal Independent MPs, and the Presbyterian MPs who put conformity to the Solemn League and Covenant above political or religious liberty; yet the tax burden of the standing New Model Army and the unscriptural prohibitions, eg of Christmas, exasperated the people of England so much that they would have elected representatives who would have reinstated the King and his outrageous tyrannies; it was because of this catch-22 that Fairfax ordered Pride to purge the Parliament of its Presbyterian MPs rather than call new elections).
Some quotes...
"We are not traitors or murderers or fantatics but true Christians and good commonwealthsmen, fixed and constant in the principles of sanctity, truth, justice and mercy, which the Parliament and army declared and engaged for, and to that noble principle of preferring the universality before particularity. We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than freedom." - John Cooke, letter from prison, September 1660
In these words, Cooke wrote the epitaph for the lawyers and colonels, the Puritans and the preachers who had dared to act on the belief that no man was above the law.
[...]
The axe that beheaded Charles confirmed at its stroke the principles of parliamentary sovereignty, judicial independence, no taxation without representation, no detention without trial - as GM Trevelyan concludes: 'Never perhaps in any century have such rapid advances been made towards freedom.'
August 15, 2007
The first third of this book is excellent. The story of John Cooke who took the 'tyrannicide brief' and prosecuted King Charles is dramatic and inspiring to those, like me, who hate kings of all stripes. The author also does a nice job of illustrating this trial as precursor to the modern theory of "command responsibility" that has penetrated the sovereign immunity claimed by all the tyrants and mass-murderers brought to trial. The problem is that the book loses its narrative focus. Part of this is due to the historical facts. Although Charles was charged and prosecuted, there was no real trial in the modern sense, of introducing evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and the like. Because Charles had refused to plead, under then-English law he was deemed guilty and the court moved immediately to the penalty phase. Very anti-climatic. The rest of the book is dedicated to the Commonwealth era and the Restoration, and the subsequent trial and execution of the 'regicides', Cooke included. Here the book became too much of a general history of the era. Cooke, while heroic, is too much of a boring-old British barrister to carry a whole book. Final verdict: read the first half, skim the rest. And hate kings 'til the day you die.
February 14, 2009
An overview of the civil war but mainly focused on the trials of Charles Stuart and then, 10 years later, the regicides.
This book is all centred on John Cooke, a lawyer, who took the brief of the Rump Parliament against Charles and ended up tried for treason himself when Charles 2nd came to power.
I think this is one of the most balanced Hx of the period I've read.
But the civil war is only the backdrop of the more intricate story of the way law was changed by the trial of the king, the way the republic occured more by chance than design...and then the way everything was reversed on the restoration of the Stuarts. This contrasts the trial of the king with the show trials of the regicides.
Very good.
This book is all centred on John Cooke, a lawyer, who took the brief of the Rump Parliament against Charles and ended up tried for treason himself when Charles 2nd came to power.
I think this is one of the most balanced Hx of the period I've read.
But the civil war is only the backdrop of the more intricate story of the way law was changed by the trial of the king, the way the republic occured more by chance than design...and then the way everything was reversed on the restoration of the Stuarts. This contrasts the trial of the king with the show trials of the regicides.
Very good.
February 7, 2008
If you like history, this is a great book.
"The Tyrannicide Brief" is the story of John Cooke, the English Solicitor General who was assigned the brief to prosecute King Richard I at the height of the English Civil War in 1648.
Cooke and parlimentarians convicted the king and he was beheaded. Years later, the monarchy returned to power with Richard II as king and the regicides, including Cooke, were arrested, tried, and drawed-and-quartered.
Cooke's ideas about Republicanism and law reform did not stick when he presented them. Obviously, Cooke was man ahead of his time and this book is a good account of his life and England during the mid-1600s.
"The Tyrannicide Brief" is the story of John Cooke, the English Solicitor General who was assigned the brief to prosecute King Richard I at the height of the English Civil War in 1648.
Cooke and parlimentarians convicted the king and he was beheaded. Years later, the monarchy returned to power with Richard II as king and the regicides, including Cooke, were arrested, tried, and drawed-and-quartered.
Cooke's ideas about Republicanism and law reform did not stick when he presented them. Obviously, Cooke was man ahead of his time and this book is a good account of his life and England during the mid-1600s.
September 10, 2009
Brilliantly researched and written this covers a period that is uncomfortable for monarchists but reveals how ideas lead to big changes.
October 2, 2017
Brilliant, fascinating and impeccably researched.
January 5, 2025
This is a biography of John Cooke, the lawyer who led the prosecution of Charles I in 1649. The biographer, also a lawyer, presents Cooke as a humble and brave man and an effective legal reformer. The very fact that Cooke accepted the brief establishes him as a mensch. Preferred lawyers made themselves scarce in anticipation of the assignment. So Cooke, who was thought of as a highly competent and principled small fry with a commitment to legal reform, was tapped as Solicitor General (call it Second Chair) to a more experienced and esteemed barrister. But that poor fellow got real sick real quick. (Uh huh.) So Cooke had to step up. And he had TEN DAYS to prepare.
The charge was to be treason. But in a kingdom where the monarch is above the law there are a couple of problems. First, how to prosecute the law giver. The King, by definition, can do no wrong. Second, how could you try the peerless king before a jury of his peers? Cooke addressed the first problem by inventing the strategy of prosecuting the king for tyranny rather than treason. This would be the precursor to what we now call crimes against humanity. Controversial then and mostly ineffectual now. The second problem was handled more controversially by Commons creating a court and declaring it competent.
The narrative of the trial has a cinematic quality and is a pleasure to read.
The book contains much more than just the trial, of course. It discusses issues in law, constitutional, criminal and civil, in easily understandable language.
As a biography, it is a little bit difficult to accept without some skepticism. Robertson stops just short of asserting that Cooke’s poop didn’t stink. He provides plenty of evidence, though, that Cooke was a good man who devoted his career to the improvement of justice and equity in the English legal system.
The charge was to be treason. But in a kingdom where the monarch is above the law there are a couple of problems. First, how to prosecute the law giver. The King, by definition, can do no wrong. Second, how could you try the peerless king before a jury of his peers? Cooke addressed the first problem by inventing the strategy of prosecuting the king for tyranny rather than treason. This would be the precursor to what we now call crimes against humanity. Controversial then and mostly ineffectual now. The second problem was handled more controversially by Commons creating a court and declaring it competent.
The narrative of the trial has a cinematic quality and is a pleasure to read.
The book contains much more than just the trial, of course. It discusses issues in law, constitutional, criminal and civil, in easily understandable language.
As a biography, it is a little bit difficult to accept without some skepticism. Robertson stops just short of asserting that Cooke’s poop didn’t stink. He provides plenty of evidence, though, that Cooke was a good man who devoted his career to the improvement of justice and equity in the English legal system.
February 4, 2020
Best legal history I have ever read. A must read for anyone that pretends to be educated about English legal procedure, Cromwell, Milton, or the Restoration. Shocks are many: virtually every page is a new learning unavailable from most other pitifully partisan sources of and about the period. Relevance to the criminally insane leadership in many Western countries of today is also remarkable.
Well written from both the scholarly and journalistic viewpoints. Engaging as literature. If you pick one book to read from my reviews, let this be it. Too bad I can't give it six stars. Or ten.
Well written from both the scholarly and journalistic viewpoints. Engaging as literature. If you pick one book to read from my reviews, let this be it. Too bad I can't give it six stars. Or ten.
July 30, 2017
So there is no doubting the intellectual prowess and depth of this book. It's stunningly detailed, lovingly intricate and immaculately researched. Unfortunatel for me this great strength is also a great weakness. It's repetetive and arrid with the admittedly eye opening insights into legal innovations slowing the thrust of the narrative. Perhaps I was looking for the wrong thing, I thought this would be more of an historical novel and was dissapponted.
August 4, 2017
As expected, Geoffrey Robertson has produced an exquisitely researched and presented book revealing another of history's 'forgotten' men.
Gory in detail but then, how many people really know exactly what 'hung, drawn and quartered' actually meant?
Research, research and more research has resulted in a fine addition to any lawyer's bookshelf. Thankfully my lawyer friend Allen loaned me his copy.
Gory in detail but then, how many people really know exactly what 'hung, drawn and quartered' actually meant?
Research, research and more research has resulted in a fine addition to any lawyer's bookshelf. Thankfully my lawyer friend Allen loaned me his copy.
July 23, 2019
I spend a lot of time reading Tudor/ Stewart history and it's important to deal with some of the longer term impacts of those events. An important read for those interested in history and in the establishment of legal principles. it also revises one's thinking about such principles as next cab off the rank, and the man on the Clapham Omnibus. I learned a lot and enjoyed every moment and it was my third read.
March 4, 2021
I enjoyed reading this book. I’m not especially sympathetic to any of the historical characters. Treason trials, by their nature, are unfair. The winning move is not to play in 17th century politics.
January 31, 2022
For those anglophiles like me that want to understand the story of Charles I. Read it for a class and enjoyed it.
February 2, 2024
A fascinating true story, and dense with detail. A hard but rewarding read. This man was so far ahead of his time.
September 29, 2011
This is an important book that covers the events surrounding the trial and execution of King Charles 1st of England.
The man who lead the prosecution has been air brushed out of English history. John Cooke was a dedicated hard working and honest man in an age of corruption, lies, religious zealotry, and despotism.He formed a concept of law that was years ahead of his time.He was the instigator of reforms that took many years to be implemented. Some have only taken place in the last twenty years. Why has he been ignored as an important person in history?
At the center of British life is a snobbery that is all pervasive. The most fervent English anti-monarchist will still have a clear idea of their place in the scheme of the class structure. The love of Royalty is a part of English life that has been nurtured by clever advisers and the political power structure of England. To consider anything else is to be looked upon as a part of the lunatic fringe. Democracy is still seen as an experiment by Britain, and the scandals of Lords and the Upper Classes is merely entertainment, not a reason to change the "Class" system.
As an Australian, I've grown up in an atmosphere that has a more egalitarian feeling, but still has class structures.The need for structure in human affairs creates all kinds of situations. Contrast the historic battles of Royalty and kingdoms with the action in "Lord of the Flies". Anarchy in many peoples ideas is a blissful answer to the corruption of delusional "Divine Rule of Kings". We live in a modern age that seeks to balance the evils and the benefits of many inherited systems of government. The dreams of Revolution have often turned into rivers of blood, as the French and Russian examples show.
Politics is of course always a grubby activity, and the betrayal of John Cooke by the powerful of his time was inevitable in many ways. I encourage those interested in politics to read this book.
The author, Geoffrey Robertson is a trouble making Australian with a fine legal pedigree and a fine eye for detail. His keen mind seeks to find a clear path between the fires of conflicting impulses in the political and legal contradictions of power.
The man who lead the prosecution has been air brushed out of English history. John Cooke was a dedicated hard working and honest man in an age of corruption, lies, religious zealotry, and despotism.He formed a concept of law that was years ahead of his time.He was the instigator of reforms that took many years to be implemented. Some have only taken place in the last twenty years. Why has he been ignored as an important person in history?
At the center of British life is a snobbery that is all pervasive. The most fervent English anti-monarchist will still have a clear idea of their place in the scheme of the class structure. The love of Royalty is a part of English life that has been nurtured by clever advisers and the political power structure of England. To consider anything else is to be looked upon as a part of the lunatic fringe. Democracy is still seen as an experiment by Britain, and the scandals of Lords and the Upper Classes is merely entertainment, not a reason to change the "Class" system.
As an Australian, I've grown up in an atmosphere that has a more egalitarian feeling, but still has class structures.The need for structure in human affairs creates all kinds of situations. Contrast the historic battles of Royalty and kingdoms with the action in "Lord of the Flies". Anarchy in many peoples ideas is a blissful answer to the corruption of delusional "Divine Rule of Kings". We live in a modern age that seeks to balance the evils and the benefits of many inherited systems of government. The dreams of Revolution have often turned into rivers of blood, as the French and Russian examples show.
Politics is of course always a grubby activity, and the betrayal of John Cooke by the powerful of his time was inevitable in many ways. I encourage those interested in politics to read this book.
The author, Geoffrey Robertson is a trouble making Australian with a fine legal pedigree and a fine eye for detail. His keen mind seeks to find a clear path between the fires of conflicting impulses in the political and legal contradictions of power.
January 5, 2013
I have read this book again so I can do a review and also refresh my memory on the events of this incredibly chaotic time in English history. There is no doubt that Robertson has a powerful intellect and this is displayed by the forensic detail of his writing, through which he pulls together all the relevant people, events and circumstances that make up the total picture leading up to the execution of Charles I, the subsequent struggle to find a workable government within a Republic and then the final vengeful and blood thirsty restoration.
This makes fascinating reading and I have rediscovered facts about legal precedents created during this time which continue in practice today; the origins of old sayings still used such as “give him no quarter”; and the uncanny parallels with the attitudes of modern tyrants such as Saddam Hussain when brought before an international court to account for their treacherous deeds.
The detail of the research is a credit to Robertson’s diligence in providing us with all the facts, but at the same time it is not a dry old read. He paints a portrait of John Cooke against a very rich background of the culture and social history that prevailed, so we have a better appreciation of the colour and character of the times. His descriptions of “drawing and quartering”, although grotesque, thrusts the reader right into the centre of the macabre and public theatre played out during a civil war that tore a nation apart. He gives us the “blood and guts” because we would have no real sense of it if he didn’t.
I will probably read this book again in 10 years time, just to remind myself of how much is ever changing but how little has changed over the course of history. Power, envy, hatred and greed will continue to drive conflict between nations, religions and within nations while we harbour these black seeds in our hearts.
This makes fascinating reading and I have rediscovered facts about legal precedents created during this time which continue in practice today; the origins of old sayings still used such as “give him no quarter”; and the uncanny parallels with the attitudes of modern tyrants such as Saddam Hussain when brought before an international court to account for their treacherous deeds.
The detail of the research is a credit to Robertson’s diligence in providing us with all the facts, but at the same time it is not a dry old read. He paints a portrait of John Cooke against a very rich background of the culture and social history that prevailed, so we have a better appreciation of the colour and character of the times. His descriptions of “drawing and quartering”, although grotesque, thrusts the reader right into the centre of the macabre and public theatre played out during a civil war that tore a nation apart. He gives us the “blood and guts” because we would have no real sense of it if he didn’t.
I will probably read this book again in 10 years time, just to remind myself of how much is ever changing but how little has changed over the course of history. Power, envy, hatred and greed will continue to drive conflict between nations, religions and within nations while we harbour these black seeds in our hearts.
February 10, 2013
This book came to me a Christmas present and would be a period and topic I would have only a fairly passing knowledge of. With the main focus of the book on the man who prosecuted Charles the First of England, the English Civil war(s) get only really a fairly passing acknowledgement, which is fair enough. It covers the run up to, trial of Charles and ten years later that of John Cooke and his terrible death. It is all written in a language that is very accessible. Which is all well done.
My problem however is the authors aren't so much in the subtext, they are shoved center-stage repeatedly. Now there is nothing wrong with having the opinion that Britain should be a republic, but when in the prologue there is a paragraph damning Australia* for not opting (to date) to become republic then I feel the writer has lost sight of the topic and is in danger of simply turning the book into an opinion piece. Secondly the author admits that the information about John Cooke is a bit sparse, much having been destroyed one way or another down through the centuries. Which left me feeling what was there had been given the most positive spin possible with the writer plainly wanting to saint his hero.
I think what I look for in a history book is a writer who while interested in their topic can take a step back, look objectively and above all else not use it as a platform for their own opinions on modern matters.
*my personal view on that is if Australia, an independent sovereign nation, has the means to become a republic but hasn't yet chosen to do so, well then that democracy in action.
My problem however is the authors aren't so much in the subtext, they are shoved center-stage repeatedly. Now there is nothing wrong with having the opinion that Britain should be a republic, but when in the prologue there is a paragraph damning Australia* for not opting (to date) to become republic then I feel the writer has lost sight of the topic and is in danger of simply turning the book into an opinion piece. Secondly the author admits that the information about John Cooke is a bit sparse, much having been destroyed one way or another down through the centuries. Which left me feeling what was there had been given the most positive spin possible with the writer plainly wanting to saint his hero.
I think what I look for in a history book is a writer who while interested in their topic can take a step back, look objectively and above all else not use it as a platform for their own opinions on modern matters.
*my personal view on that is if Australia, an independent sovereign nation, has the means to become a republic but hasn't yet chosen to do so, well then that democracy in action.
December 12, 2011
Were John Cooke given his proper place in history, he would be venerated as one of the most important legal figures. Rather, it is the world’s privilege to have Geoffrey Robertson bring his life to modern audiences. Cooke’s life and legacy is more than his important place in the English Civil War, the trial and execution Charles I and the repercussions of those involved. It is of the legal principles exposed and practiced that at worst now remain a worthy aspirational aim (e.g. making each lawyer donate 10% of their time on what we would now call pro bono work) and at best are at some of the heart of the legal practice (e.g. what is similar to what we effectively now call the cab rank rule, the insistence of conviction according to law and not assassination or other illegal method).
Geoffrey Robertson brings his immense legal acumen and prodigious forensic ability to produce this lucid account of a turbulent time in English history and a profoundly important and sadly neglected part of history. Even if some get lost in all the details, Cooke’s faithful adherence to law and its independence even in such tempestuous times and his steadfast diligence in performing his legal duty in the face of political opposition, against the tide of the then profession and ultimately, to his death, is a tale that deserves to be more widely known.
Geoffrey Robertson brings his immense legal acumen and prodigious forensic ability to produce this lucid account of a turbulent time in English history and a profoundly important and sadly neglected part of history. Even if some get lost in all the details, Cooke’s faithful adherence to law and its independence even in such tempestuous times and his steadfast diligence in performing his legal duty in the face of political opposition, against the tide of the then profession and ultimately, to his death, is a tale that deserves to be more widely known.
Read
May 5, 2010Criminal barrister Alex McBride has chosen to discuss
The Tyrannicide Brief
by Geoffrey Robertson on FiveBooks as one of the top five on his subject - Trial By Jury, saying that:
“…This is about a radical lawyer who took a case nobody wanted. John Cook prosecuted King Charles I on the basis that a ruler cannot kill his own people and then claim executive privilege. He won and in 1649 the death warrant was signed and the King was beheaded outside St James’s Palace. The room where the King spent his last night is still there – just on Pall Mall. Cook established, as Robertson argues it, that rulers are not above their own people. Of course, it ends badly for Cook. Charles II was restored and Cook was hunted down, hung, drawn and quartered. An unbelievably horrible way to go and sad because he hadn’t wanted Charles I to be executed. But there are seeds of this case in current international law and in the arrests of people like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein. …”
The full interview is available here: http://fivebooks.com/interviews/alex-...
“…This is about a radical lawyer who took a case nobody wanted. John Cook prosecuted King Charles I on the basis that a ruler cannot kill his own people and then claim executive privilege. He won and in 1649 the death warrant was signed and the King was beheaded outside St James’s Palace. The room where the King spent his last night is still there – just on Pall Mall. Cook established, as Robertson argues it, that rulers are not above their own people. Of course, it ends badly for Cook. Charles II was restored and Cook was hunted down, hung, drawn and quartered. An unbelievably horrible way to go and sad because he hadn’t wanted Charles I to be executed. But there are seeds of this case in current international law and in the arrests of people like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein. …”
The full interview is available here: http://fivebooks.com/interviews/alex-...
March 2, 2013
A very rewarding and interesting read. As expected.
well written, well researched and with some very interesting ideas about legal matters.
The first idea, that this time is when the notion of the duty to provide legal representation was taken seriously, is interesting and compelling given the results for this man.
Even more interesting was the idea developed by Robertson, from the records of this case, is the idea that a ruler loses the right to govern, if they do so to the detriment of those they rule. This is clearly a notion which is being explored in modern circumstances. It would seem to be an idea which has found its time. I would expect variants of this thought to be expressed in international diplomacy and in international courts.
This week the White House in expressing support for the Oppostion forces in Syria, seemed to be taking for granted the idea that the Syrian government had lost its right to govern. The basis , although mot analysed in public speeches, seems to be this idea of a failure of the basic duty of a ruler.
A fascinating insight into the life and growth of a legal concept.
And a richly rewarding read about a complex time in English history.
well written, well researched and with some very interesting ideas about legal matters.
The first idea, that this time is when the notion of the duty to provide legal representation was taken seriously, is interesting and compelling given the results for this man.
Even more interesting was the idea developed by Robertson, from the records of this case, is the idea that a ruler loses the right to govern, if they do so to the detriment of those they rule. This is clearly a notion which is being explored in modern circumstances. It would seem to be an idea which has found its time. I would expect variants of this thought to be expressed in international diplomacy and in international courts.
This week the White House in expressing support for the Oppostion forces in Syria, seemed to be taking for granted the idea that the Syrian government had lost its right to govern. The basis , although mot analysed in public speeches, seems to be this idea of a failure of the basic duty of a ruler.
A fascinating insight into the life and growth of a legal concept.
And a richly rewarding read about a complex time in English history.
May 10, 2012
I thoroughly enjoyed Geoffrey Robertson's account of John Cooke. John Cooke would I hope be happy to see the efforts that have been taken to try and restore his name after being executed as a regicide almost 400 years ago.
Recommended highly for those with an interest in the English Civil War/Revolution and for those interested in reading the account of a principled lawyer trying to reform a corrupt legal system. It goes into much more detail than simply the trial of Charles I and conveys the character of Mr Cooke pretty convincingly.
John Cooke comes over as a much more sympathetic and interesting case than Thomas Moore. Geoffrey Robertson is one of the most engaging legal authors that I am aware of today.
Also, the story is perfect material for a John Adams style tv mini series.
Recommended highly for those with an interest in the English Civil War/Revolution and for those interested in reading the account of a principled lawyer trying to reform a corrupt legal system. It goes into much more detail than simply the trial of Charles I and conveys the character of Mr Cooke pretty convincingly.
John Cooke comes over as a much more sympathetic and interesting case than Thomas Moore. Geoffrey Robertson is one of the most engaging legal authors that I am aware of today.
Also, the story is perfect material for a John Adams style tv mini series.
April 9, 2015
A fascinating book about one of the pivotal moments of English history. It is non-fiction, but extremely well written and a compelling read. The book centers on the trial of King Charles I, and the life of John Cooke, the lawyer for the prosecution. It also cleverly weaves in details of all the political machinations and military conflict of the English civil war. The books does contain some fairly graphic details of torture and executions, but in a frank and factual way that simply demonstrates the cruelty of the times and the courage of the victims.
My only criticism of the book is that it is sometimes hard to keep track of some of the minor characters that show up periodically in the narrative, but overall the book is excellent.
My only criticism of the book is that it is sometimes hard to keep track of some of the minor characters that show up periodically in the narrative, but overall the book is excellent.
May 5, 2010
A fascinating account of the English legal system, the birth of the English constitutional monarchy, and an intriguing analysis of precedents that have paved the way for world leaders to be tried for their crimes against their own people (Slobodan Milosevic and Pinochet in particular are highlighted).
This is an excellent book for law students, history buffs, and law history buffs.
This is an excellent book for law students, history buffs, and law history buffs.
August 20, 2012
Excellent review of the life of a great man, and a well written account of a time when England struggled, however, feebly towards a just society. Robertson skilfully and engagingly writes a biography of John Cooke, the lawyer who successfully prosecuted Charles 1st for tyranny and war crimes. Long live the Republic!
June 6, 2015
A new take on an old story. Robertson holds up John Cooke, the prosecutor in the case against Charles I, as a liberal hero who was 350 years before his time. Robertson puts the best face possible on the Interregnum, but he succeeds in making a case that Cooke - not the Stuarts - are the ones to celebrate in a republican world.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews