A Monarchy Transformed: Britain, 1603 - 1714

Penguin History of Britain #6

by Mark A. Kishlansky

The seventeenth century, writes Mark Kishlansky, was "a wheel of transformation in perpetual motion," a period of political and religious upheaval that defined the nation for decades to come and remains critical for understanding the nation today.

Beginning with the accession of James I and concluding with the death of Queen Anne, this compelling account describes the tempestuous events that took place during the Stuart dynasty and provides lively pen portraits of the many fascinating personalities involved. Conspiracies, rebellions, and revolutions jostle side by side with court intrigues, political infighting and the rise of parties. In 1603 Britain was an isolated archipelago; by 1714 it had emerged among the intellectual, commercial, and military centers of the world.

"Kishlansky's century saw one king executed, another exiled, the House of Lords abolished, and the Church of England reconstructed along Presbyterian lines . . . A masterly narrative, shot through with the shrewdness that comes from profound scholarship."--Jonathan Clark, Spectator

"A historian with a real love for the period, a real understanding of many different aspects of it, and an exhilarating style."--Ronald Hutton, The Times Literary Supplement

"This sweeping, dramatic chronicle of a century of Stuart rule will rivet even the general reader with no particular interest in British history."--Publishers Weekly

Genres: History, Nonfiction, European History, British Literature, Politics, 17th Century, School

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Mark Alan Kishlansky (1948-2015) was a historian of seventeenth-century British politics. He was the Frank Baird, Jr. Professor of History at Harvard University.

He completed his undergraduate degree at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1970 and proceeded to graduate study under David Underdown at Brown University, receiving his M.A. in 1972 and his Ph. D. in 1977. From 1975 to 1991 he taught at the University of Chicago, successively as instructor and professor. From 1990 to 1991 he was a member of the Committee on Social Thought. He was a visiting professor at Northwestern University in 1983 and was the Mellon Visiting Professor in the Humanities and Social Sciences at the California Institute of Technology in 1990-1991. In 1991 he became a professor at Harvard University and from 1998 to 2001 served as Associate Dean of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. He was editor of the Journal of British Studies from 1984 to 1991 and editor-in-chief of History Compass from 2003 to 2009

Reviews

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

I sometimes think that my love of 'Penguin History of x' series is straight masochism; but Kishlansky's volume on seventeenth century Britain is very well done. He writes clearly, his sentences follow on from each other (not always the case with today's historians), and he seems to have written for people who are interested in history, rather than for professors who need a text-book for an era they know little about: this book is not about settling scores with other professors.

The book focuses mainly on narrating the Main Story of the times, but it does start with a couple of chapters on social and political structures. He's also a good bibliographer, giving you plenty of options for further reading. The only real caveat is that the book is probably better for someone who already knows that, e.g., there was an English Revolution and so on. Kishlansky does a great job of showing how and why things happened, and he doesn't focus on any particular set of causes over any other. I'm not sure how good he is at making sure you know who Cromwell is before launching into the events of the age.

[Jacob Hatch · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very thorough insight into the events of Stuart Britain and the interregnum. I think Kishlansky underplays the religious differences as a huge cause for all the conflict, but it's a good oversight of the era.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was excellent and showed the transformation of Britain politically through the ups and downs of reigns.

[Bookthesp1 · Rating 5 out of 5]

This contribution to the Penguin History of Britain has been around since 1996 and considering its age it still reads as a fresh, intelligent and detailed narrative of an amazingly busy period. Kishlansky writes with the authority gained from years of scholarship and is both balanced and enlightening in his views. Its easy for example to be prurient about James 1 but Kishlansky accentuates the positive achievements of his reign and has good words to say about characters such as the Duke of Buckingham, sometimes written off by others as a dissolute favourite. He negotiates the complexities of Civil War Britain with a masterly narrative and references an enormous amount of detail for such a relatively short book whilst still allowing the reader to delve deeper with a helpful bibliography which is still on the money despite the passage of time. Indeed, whilst the historiography has not stopped in the years since this book was published the narrative still feels fresh and reliable as do his judgements. There are also excellent chapters on the later Stuarts, though I wanted a little more on the complexities of the Glorious Revolution and Williams motivation.
The device of starting most chapters with a good old story (the Gunpowder Plot; the Great Fire of London, etc) works well in both jogging the memory and providing a micro narrative within the whole text which contains some great analysis.
Overall its the enthusiasm of the writer as well as the proof of his title by the age of Queen Anne that makes this one of the best one volume Histories of this period and an outstanding contribution which would suit students as well as academic historians. The idea that one could write a decent one volume history of the seventeenth century (with enough effective coverage) seems laughable considering the amount that has been written on the Civil war alone. Writers such as Tim Harris have opted for multi volume approaches but Kishlansky has pulled it off in spades and this book merits both a read and a re-read. It works a narrative history and still has integrity as an academic analysis. Great stuff. My only regret is coming to it so late.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hope I never have to take a test on this book. Who were The Levelers, The Ranters, what was Armininianism, who won (or even fought in) the Battle of Benburg, did The Army Plot succeed, why doesn't the self denying ordinance get any upper case letters, what did the spice trade have to do with any of this, can you explain The Humble Person and Advice? This book has everything you want to know about 17th Century Britain and possibly more than you can absorb. The writing is, well, not spell binding, although I did love the line "The Nine Years War did not go well."
In case you ever wondered why our founding fathers chose not to establish a monarchy, insisted upon the separation of church and state, and feared the establishment of a large national army, consider this--they must have known this history intimately.

Book is recommended to history buffs and political junkies. Perhaps some future historian will write about our own times. What was The Tea Party, the NRA, a drone, which were the blue and red states, what was the sequester, the fiscal cliff, who was Sarah Palin and why was she forgotten so quickly?

At least these old guys had the Tower of London and a few other neat little solutions.

[mila · Rating 4 out of 5]

again really compelling read even tho its assigned from my tudors and stuarts class!! peguin history of britain so far two for two... might have to circle back to some of the medieval ones

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a reasonably compact history of Britain under the Stuart dynasty that serves a fairly good introduction to the period. There's a lot of ground to cover, and the focus of the book as stated up front is the political transformation of the period, from rule by a divine monarch, to a commonwealth, and then to rule by a constitutional monarch.

The half-dozen Stuart rulers play a leading role, of course, as do the royal favorites and advisors at the outset and the parliamentary leaders during the gestation of faction and party. That said, the narrative doesn't dwell on the psychology or even biography of the main actors; I could have used a bit more of it at times, as a way to better understand some of the dynamics driving the players. Given the outsize role it played in the period, I could have also stood to hear more background on the religious controversies (perhaps a Briton, or even a protestant, would bring more of that background with them). The focus of the book shifts smoothly to international relations when it needs to (the 30 Years War, the wars of Louis XIV) and then back to domestic politics (the Civil War and Protectorate).
There is due attention paid to Ireland and Scotland, though always from the English perspective. Internal conflicts in the other nations is there, but in broad strokes: The section on the union with Scotland passed far too quickly in my mind, and I found the sections on the internal Irish conflicts difficult to sort out.

Kishlansky's style is readable but stiff, and there is a tendency for the narrative to bounce around--I found myself occasionally confused by religious sects, political positions, or parliamentary bills, especially when they went by multiple names. The short sketches that start each chapter are nicely done, but sometimes confusing because they lacked context and were generally repeated (with more logic and less color) within the chapter. On the whole, I would recommend the book to anyone interested in the era: it's a good introductory survey that assumes a little, but not too much, from a curious reader.

[Karen Floyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written, informative and very readable. I even carried it back and forth to work so I could read it on lunch breaks. There was a lot of history to cram into one book covering the Stewart monarchs and Kishlansky does this admirably. Some reviewers complained that there wasn't enough depth of coverage on all the players, and while I too often wanted more detail, there were so many players in this approximately 100-year period that the book could be twice as long as it is and still not cover all the nuances. This is meant to be an introduction to and overview of the Stewart era. The events were complicated and convoluted, but Kisnhlansky makes sense of them without sacrificing coherence. He also provides an extensive further reading list at the end of the book for those who want to know more about the period. Though, to my mind, that does not make up for the lack of citations within the book. Not citing sources because a book is aimed at the general reader seems condescending and colludes in our culture's penchant for dumbing down. It is important to know who said what,as in the following highly entertaining but frustrating passage:
"[Queen] Anne was dull, taciturn, stubborn and unattractive. Her conversation was mind-numbing, her taste insipid, her pleasures limited to gambling and dining, losing pounds at one set of tables and gaining them at the other. The Queen had the good fortune to marry below her, for George of Denmark was, if anything, less impressive, and their union was blissful." What was the source, or sources, that caused the author to believe this? It makes all the differnce in knowing whether the source was reliable or not.

[John David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book several months ago, and don’t remember many of the details of the individual narratives, but these are some general impressions on finishing the book.

This is the sixth volume in the (so far) ten-volume Penguin History of Britain series. As with many of these, this was a bit of a slog. I don’t know why I keep doing this to myself. The author, Mark Kishlansky, professor of English and English History at Harvard, seems eminently qualified to make this an engaging book, but it really isn’t. Some reviews have referred to this as a good “undergraduate history” of the Stuart period, and that may be the case; I would only want to read it in a class where information was also pulled together in a more compelling way.

A period that was so riven by political and social conflict should, perhaps, be handled with that kind of history. I have always been more interested in intellectual and cultural history, which this volume (and, it seems, most volume in this series) ignores, though I’ve tried not to fault it for that in my rating. A reader who asks herself, at the end of the book, “How was the monarchy transformed?” would have a difficult time answering the question precisely because of the way Kishlansky wrote the book: as a series of vivid vignettes full of vibrant personalities. The changes that happened to the important institutions, however, are much less apparent.

[Michael Bacon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is not without its flaws. Perhaps 4 stars would be a more appropriate evaluation of the work as history. Firstly, it's so packed and fast paced that it can be hard, at times, to keep up - a situation not helped by Kishlansky's tendency not to go into too much detail explaining the intricacies of any argument, position, plan or personality. Secondly, Kishlansky's narrative is very much a grand narrative, and one little concerned with the architecture of society, the evolution of law, the exercise of the soul, or the rhythms of daily life. This is the story of power, pure and simple.

While these are pertinent criticisms, the net effect of omitting so much is that Kishlansky tells a damn good story a hundred years in the making, at a breakneck pace across 340-odd pages. It may only get four stars as a history (maybe even three - this book will not educate you a whit about what life was actually like for 99.9% of Brits in the 17th Century), but as a yarn and an introduction to the politics of the time it's top class. When you think about it, the title says it all.

[Pedro · Rating 2 out of 5]

A history of the British Kingdoms from the start of James I's reign to the conclusion of queen Anne's. This does a solid job of explaining the major developments of the period, but Kishlansky isn't the most engaging historical author. He tells England's story principally through the stories of monarchs and politicians with comparatively little attention paid to social and cultural developments surrounding them. At the same time instead of digging into the personal lives of the monarchs for the most part he avoids seriously examining their motivations. It also becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of the revolving carousel of ministers and nobles who are appointed and replaced throughout the story. This is not a bad book by any measure. It provides an accurate and competent summery of the period, but while I have no serious criticisms of the author's scholarship I can't in good faith claim that I liked it.

[Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had a nodding acquaintance with the author back in the day and am far better acquainted with his works on parliamentary selection and the New Model Army. So it was with a certain elegiac pleasure I cracked this open, after its having sat on a shelf for years. It's an example of the general history written by a specialist. Unlike many books in this genre, it manages to retain interest in what might attract a generalist to this sort of thing in the first place, while tricking out the better known anecdotes and outlines of history with well-chosen supplements. And all while bravely and competently negotiating the rapids of specialist warfare that has dogged the historiography of the English Civil War for the better part of the last fifty years. In some ways, Kishlansky's book is a throwback, a 'history from the top' trot that gives special place to the Big Names that did big stuff over the course of the Stuart century. Such a version of the story is always going to feel to some readers as if it scants social movements from below in favor of a narrative about (white) men in power. In other words, to some, it may feel as if this pays insufficient attention to matters of race, class and gender. There's a little effort to move the focus off high politics with the short anecdotes that begin each chapter, but Kishlansky is largely unapologetic for writing a history from above. (And to be completely fair, Penguin has a series of books covering the social history of Britain.) Indeed, he argues that he wants to write a book animated with the kind of spirit that motivated him to be interested in the period when he was younger. Whether he has succeeded surely depends on who's reading this. But as a nuts and bolts narrative covering the Stuart struggles with religion and prerogative that gave shape to the seventeenth century, this is brisk and clear in terms of readability. There are occasional moments that will still send a reader scurrying to the internets to unearth a term or Act that the volume seems to assume with be familiar to all. But as a general history written by a specialist, there seem to be relatively few of these moments over all. Recommended as one of the better examples of an often-botched genre.

[Emilija · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a really interesting straightforward read concerning the Stuart era. The author does assume that you know the key people, ie. Cromwell, involved in this era, so possibly not the best book for beginners. I love the topic, following the monarchy as it transforms from a divine monarch to a commonwealth and back to a constitutional monarchy. I also found the topic of Parliament interesting during this book, as it covers the growth of Parliament and the House of Commons and Lords into a format we would somewhat recognise today.

It does lack a bit in the Scottish and Irish perspectives, as they are written from an English perspective, and as the hot topic of the Stuart era was religion, as both Scotland and Ireland observed mainly Presbyterianism and Roman Catholicism respectively, it would have added something to the understanding of the conflicts between nations if these perspectives could have been explored. In addition, Kishlansky's writing was rather stiff, which made really getting into the book a bit difficult, and the style of writing can be difficult at times to follow because he tends to bounce the narrative. I didn't particularly like the chapter introductions which would take up to four pages giving a little sketch of the time. I think Chapter 2 had a three page sketch about Guy Fawkes? I just found them boring. It also felt quite unbalanced, because over half of the book covers the rule of James I (VI in Scotland) and Charles I, the Commonwealth takes up a large chunk, and then James II, William and Mary, and Anne take up about three chapters, which I think is an oversight because the second half of the Stuart Monarchy is also important to the transformation of the monarchy. Because the author shoves all four into three chapters, they also feel quite rushed.

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love English history. I pretty much will read anything from English history and while I can describe in irritating detail, while asleep, the Tudor era, I can't do the same thing for Stuart England. This is a good book for people who want to delve into the era and can move on to specific histories and biographies. I also like that it's more than just the monarchy. It takes on the entire time period under Stuart rule.

However, I also found that it was sloppy with small facts like ages (i.e. He mentions Elizabeth I was 70 when she died and Edward VI was 16 when he died, but that was the age they would have turned if they had not had died before their birthdays), generational lines (i.e. He mentions James VI&I was the great-grandson of Henry VII, but was really his great-great grandson), and personality quirks (i.e. This was the first I ever heard of James VI&I doting on his queen). It makes me wonder the facts I didn't know by heart were wrong.

It's also a bit unbalanced. The first 46 years of Stuart rule under James VI&I and Charles I take up over the first half of the book. Add in the Commonwealth period and you're not reaching the third Stuart monarch, Charles II, until well after 200 pages. James II only gets one chapter. Mary II, William III, and Anne are sharing the last two chapters.

So, this is maybe something that is good as a primer, but it should be used as a starting point and not a definite resources.

[Erik Champenois · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful overview of Britain in the seventeenth century (and up until 1714), but covering so many events that I almost wish that the period had been covered by two or three books in the series. From the English Civil War to the Restoration to the Revolution of 1688 - and with the many other events before, during, and after all of these - "A Monarchy Transformed" gives us the history from the primarily monarchical, parliamentary, and ecclesiastical points of view. In the process, we see England transforming from a country riveted by religious and political conflict to becoming a leading power in Europe. The book gives the main events of the period and covers the most significant people in positions of power, but lacks somewhat in depth on the religious (and to a lesser extent the ideological worldviews) that motivated people's actions in this period. There also was almost no nod to the literary history of the period. Still, an important and well written book and one that is vital for Americans to read to better understand the history and influences behind the American Revolution. After all, this is the period where Thomas Hobbes, John Milton, Algernon Sydney, John Locke, and other figures lived and wrote, giving rise to the politics of protest and radical Whiggery that so influenced the American Founders.

[Josiah Leinbach · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find few good, scholarly works of history (especially of early modern English history) a slog, but this was one; and truth be told, I am not entirely sure why. The last third was the main problem, though the problem is me and not the book.

Kishlansky paints a brilliant picture of the period and demonstrates that the "freedom-loving Parliamentarians vs. tyrannical Charles I" narrative is entirely contrived. Parliament, notably the radical Puritans, violated much of the established constitution and instigated much of the conflict. To be sure, Charles was far from the shrewd ruler he needed to be, made poor decisions with regard to his advisors, and had image problems from the Spanish Match debacle that he could never shake. But he was hardly a tyrant. Nor was his son Charles II filled with bloodlust to avenge his father's unjust execution. The real tyrants in all this Cromwell and, had he lived longer, John Pym.

Most impressive was the work of the two Convention Parliaments of 1660 and 1689 respectively. Their careful attention to legal particularly and how to deal with the chaotic affairs that sparked their assembly is a model of prudent statesmanship.

My milquetoast feelings about the book itself should not be taken as a knock against it. It is, in fact, quite good.

[Keeper of the Privy Seal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just recently I finished ‘Tudor England’ by Lucy Wooding and was looking to continue the story of England (or Britain’s) history. I had already bought this book in preparation, and was getting ready to read it. However, just before I opened the book I noticed it had received some praise by Blair Worden—whose own book on the mid-Seventeenth century Civil War goes down as the most needlessly complicated history book I’ve had the (dis)pleasure of reading—and I must say I panicked slightly.

This book quite literally suffers all of the same problems that Blair Worden’s book does, although I will admit not to the same extent. The first two chapters, on the social and political state of the seventeenth century, respectively, form one big info-dump. The other chapters focus less on the influence of the monarchs as opposed to the parliaments and figures of influence under them. I have a fairly ok understanding of the period, now that I’ve finished this book, but I must confess I feel a little unsatisfied.

[Jack Caulfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another very good entry in the series. I think slightly less vivid than the previous volume but makes up for this by covering a really fascinating period (that I didn't know so much about previously). Again focuses primarily on England, which remains somewhat weird, although it covers events in Scotland or Ireland whenever they impact on England, which is very often in this period. Structure is very simple and readable: two chapters on the social and political background, the eleven remaining chapters covering the high politics of the period in chronological order. Each chapter starts with a vivid description of a particular dramatic event (discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, execution of the king, etc.), then a short summary of the events the chapter will cover, then a longer narrative of those events. This is a nice device, although it sometimes threw me off a bit when the event described at the start only came towards the end of the subsequent narrative.

[Caleb]

Excellent introduction to the period. Relates the events that occurred to the institutions/innovations that resulted in a balanced and engaging manner, a challenge considering that by the end of the period we see the development of the national debt, the Bank of England, the beginnings of modern taxation, a relatively modern Treasury department, a Bill of Rights, the beginnings of religious toleration, political parties, a Parliament that meets regularly, the beginnings of British maritime dominance, a constitutional monarchy and much more. While not focusing on American issues except for social and economic factors at the beginning of the book, the complaints of this period and the solutions that resulted provide important context for the initial waves of migration, the cultural origins of the United States and demands made during the American Revolution.

[George Morrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

A phenomenal overview of the Stuart period in British history. Kishlansky provides a great introduction to the most turbulent century in the history of these islands. We begin with the accession of James I before moving onto Charles I and the civil war, the Protectorship, restoration and finally the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The author writes wonderfully fluidly while not skimping on detail. This is only a short introduction to the period but Kishlansky does provide a comprehensive (though dated by now) reading list at the end of the book. It's easy to forget details due to the scope of the work but this isn't the author's fault. An extra hundred pages or so might have been helpful but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

A superb overview of sixteenth century Britain and a great introduction for anyone unfamiliar with the period.

[Matt Gumbley · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a British history enthusiast, I found "A Monarchy Transformed, Britain 1630-1714" to be a compelling read. The book's easy-to-follow writing style makes complex historical events accessible, striking a commendable balance between depth and clarity.

The political history of Britain from James I to George I is explored thoroughly, providing a nuanced understanding of this pivotal period. The absence of footnotes streamlines the narrative, and including a comprehensive further reading section at the end ensures that readers can delve deeper into the subject at their own pace.

With its engaging writing style, occasional dashes of wit, and a comprehensive further reading section, "A Monarchy Transformed" is an easy recommendation if you like this sort of thing

[Gareth Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

A narrative history of England under the Stuart monarchs in 342 pages has to be dense. After the opening chapters, ‘The Social World’ and ‘The Political World’, this is a straight chronological account of the period 1603-1714. Initially, I found the density of information hard to process, but I found that it became and easier read as I progressed. It’s perhaps not the most enjoyable read, the prose is fine, but not especially arresting, and there is no space for the interesting minor stories and characters. Nevertheless, my shaky prior knowledge of this period has been given a framework and some rigour. A throughly worthwhile read.

[Ben Gerber · Rating 4 out of 5]

The beginning is pretty slow but it really picks up around pg.100.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants a well written and easily understandable summary of how Britain's political institutions changed throughout the 1600s. Kishlansky is particularly good at describing the motives and personalities of political actors. You will find mini-character analyses of Titus Oates, James II, Marlborough, and Queen Anne (among others).

This book is far more about the "Monarchy Transformed" part of the title than the "Britain, 1603-1714" part. You will not find much about culture, the arts, society, or the common man here.

Overall, this book is great.

4/5

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

As you might expect from the austere page count, this is a quick read that strips down the narrative of the century to its bare bones. It focuses heavily on political and military history, limiting its discussion of science, economics, culture, etc. mainly to the opening chapter. A reader familiar with the period will probably not learn much from it. For the less experienced reader, though, this is a great introduction or refresher on the period. It covers the main events and personalities without becoming bogged down in details or scholarly disputes. Kishlansky writes breezily and enlivens the narrative with anecdotes and evocative character sketches. This book could fairly be called "popular history" but without the term's negative connotations.

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Divided Populous is Hard to Govern

If we read about the past to learn about the present, this is certainly a good read. The 17th century English monarchs faced a population riven by religious differences not inclined toward toleration, and one that wanted the benefits of a strong central government but which was often reluctant to pay for it. It’s tough to be king (or queen).

[Boaz Simovici · Rating 5 out of 5]

It takes incredible skill to condense a significant period of change into a coherent, compelling narrative that weaves together politics, society, sensibilities, ideas and biography. This is history written for understanding, for integration, as well as good story-telling about the whole arc of an age.

[Ross McIntyre · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for anyone interested in the roots of the American colonies besides the very interesting events of Stuart England. Many forms of government were tries and discarded in this century and provided many lessons for the founders of the United States.

[Taylor K · Rating 5 out of 5]

A witty and engaging read of the Stuart century in British history. A great text for beginners and a text to make amateur and expert observers of the period think in great detail about the triumphs and tragedies of Britain’s seventeenth century.

[CrownOfThorns · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good overall summary of the Stuart Era. Kishlansky writes in enough detail to both provide a sufficient understanding as well as a new curiosity. Would highly recommend for any lovers of early modern English history.

[John Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really 3.5, intro to me for this period. I have slacked on British history.