Kingston Lacey is a beautiful house in Dorset and, although it shows the evidence of a number of hands at work, it is largely a memorial to William John Banks. Following a visit, where some of WJ's story was told, it made sense to read the full story. For me, the most successful and interesting part of the book covers WJ's travels in the Iberian Peninsula (during the war) and in the middle and near east. His later life abroad - although rather lacking detail - is also interesting, along with the final part on how the National Trust came to acquire the house and what it has done with it. Descriptions of the changes he made to the house and descriptions of balustrades etc., I found rather dry. He does not come across as especially likeable, but he clearly had a remarkable eye for art, antiquities and design (even down to the level of doorknobs!). No mere acquirer of luxury items, he designed features and gained an understanding of manufacturing processes, which was unusual. Ultimately, though, my sympathy for him is limited: he was a reactionary, high Tory, his social position and influence got him out of his first criminal case, and he had unlimited free time and vast amounts of money with which to indulge his passions for art etc., which came from the blood and sweat of English labourers and - through his mother's fortune - enslaved Africans.
One slightly odd feature is that in the early part of the book describing the siege of Corfe Castle (part of the Bankes estate), the author describes the Parliamentarian commander as a 'rebel', which seems a very partisan term - even if that's how the Bankes family would have seen him! I know where my Civil War sympathies lay, but I think I would be equally surprised if a modern book described King Charles I as 'that tyrannical man of blood'. Surely Parliamentarian and Royalist are the usual modern terms, no matter the author's preferences?