The Pirate King: The Strange Adventures of Henry Avery and the Birth of the Golden Age of Piracy

by Sean Kingsley, Rex Cowan

The incredible story of the “Robin Hood of the Seas,” who absconded with millions during the Golden Age of Piracy and who harbored an even greater secret.

Henry Avery of Devon pillaged a fortune from a Mughal ship off the coast of India and then vanished into thin air—and into legend. More ballads, plays, biographies and books were written about Avery’s adventures than any other pirate. His contemporaries crowned him "the pirate king" for pulling off the richest heist in pirate history and escaping with his head intact (unlike Blackbeard and his infamous Flying Gang). Avery was now the most wanted criminal on earth. To the authorities, Avery was the enemy of all mankind. To the people he was a hero. Rumors swirled about his disappearance. The only certainty is that Henry Avery became a ghost.

What happened to the notorious Avery has been pirate history’s most baffling cold case for centuries. Now, in a remote archive, a coded letter written by "Avery the Pirate" himself, years after he disappeared, reveals a stunning truth. He was a pirate that came in from the cold . . .

In The Pirate King, Sean Kingsley and Rex Cowan brilliantly tie Avery to the shadowy lives of two other icons of the early 18th century, including Daniel Defoe, the world-famous novelist and—as few people know—a deep-cover spy with more than a hundred pseudonyms, and Archbishop Thomas Tenison, a Protestant with a hatred of Catholic France.

Sean Kingsley and Rex Cowan's The Pirate King brilliantly reveals the untold epic story of Henry Avery in all it's colorful glory—his exploits, his survival, his secret double life, and how he inspired the golden age of piracy.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Pirates, Crime, Biography, Nautical, World History

249 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 2, 2024

About the author

Sean is an explorer, marine archaeologist and writer who has tracked down wonders across the world’s seas - from 1,500-year-old wine jars off Israel to 700 letters miraculously preserved with a cargo of World War II silver off Ireland.

When Sean’s not running Wreckwatch magazine and TV about sunken treasures or writing for Smithsonian Magazine, he’s part of teams exploring the first-rate warship the Victory in the English Channel – predecessor to Nelson’s Victory – and helping research the Spanish galleon the Maravillas, lost off the Bahamas in 1656 with five million pieces of eight.

With a doctorate from the University of Oxford, Sean has been called the David Attenborough of shipwrecks. Home is on the outskirts of Windsor Great Park.

Reviews

[Nick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, I tried, I really did. Even when I wanted to give up, I tried a couple more times, because it’s only 200 some odd pages. What I thought going in was going to be an interesting premise was, but wow was this a boring, repetitive, and very poorly written book. Based on the writing style, I was actually surprised to see that the author had other published books, perhaps those are better.

I’d say my review for this is very similar to the prinicpal’s response to Adam Sandler in Billy Madison when he compares the Industrial Revolution to “The Puppy Who Lost His Way.”

There were some interesting parts in what the author was trying to tell here, but sadly it was often drowned out by repetition, quotes that didn’t advance the narrative, or just poorly woven in tangents.

Clearly this was not a book for me. At least I borrowed it from the library and did not spend money on this.

[Harry Wahl · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’ve never come across a more interesting book that was so poorly written.

[Sem]

I'd planned to write a proper review but when I looked at my extensive notes I realised that most of them amounted to 'wtf?' and 'ffs!' I could, I suppose, provide a lengthy analysis of why this book was absolutely awful but really, wtf is all I can manage at the moment. Perhaps when I've calmed down and no longer regret wasting money on it I might be able to explain, at length, why it offended me. For now it will have to stand as a monument to my weakness of will when it comes to Henry Avery. No stars, not because it was completely worthless but because 'I didn't like it' doesn't do justice to my feelings. And besides, my eyes have been rolling so hard that I can barely see to type.

[Travis Hopwood · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wandering writing and repetitive storytelling detract from this non-fiction account of the relationship between Henry Avery and Daniel Defoe.

[Ruth Donigian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just sort of meh. Filled with a lot of names and events but not enough context. It feels like they were trying to make an argument for this historical thesis they had, yet they were unable to provide more evidence for it other than the letter they found and when they mixed that with their fictional narratives (which were interesting) it was hard to tell what was actually evidence and what was encounters they had made up. That made their entire argument extremely weak.

[Brandon Bishop · Rating 1 out of 5]

I guess anyone can just make stuff up about pirates, but the audacity of this particular author was frankly insulting. Trying to force feed a narrative that Avery survived and became a spy for William III alongside Daniel Defoe is patently ridiculous, and yet reported by the author as absolute truth. Poorly written history makes me sick.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half, about Avery, his turn to piracy, and his adventures were far more interesting than his post-piracy intelligence career...but in the end this was another winner. A book that takes a fresh look at old ideas from the past...and is concise and easy to read. I can't ask for much more.

[Jennifer Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was really hoping for more with this book. How can pirates and espionage be boring?

[Ben Twomey · Rating 2 out of 5]

A fascinating period with the richest imaginable characters, sold woefully short by being repetitive, clichéd, unstructured and questionably researched. Very disappointing.

[Ben Little · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was good, and I liked how short it was cause I had to speed read it to hit my reading goal, but it was a mixed bag

The beginning was super interesting and the story itself is as well, it just felt like they had to make the book longer so they added soooo many details and names that aren’t that relevant and make it confusing and a bit boring at times

But I hit my reading goal on the last day, crushed 100 pages today to get there, fuck it up fuck it up

[Shahira8826 · Rating 2 out of 5]

The problem I have with this book is that its most outlandish claims are not substantiated enough for a non-fiction work, but the writing style is not captivating enough to count as historical fiction.
The first third of the book or so is rich in references and direct quotes from the sources of the time, but after the end of chapter 9, the story takes a sharp turn into supposition territory. The main plot points of the book are simply not based on facts, and no evidence is provided for the far-fetched theories presented as truths.

[Elisabeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

" The birth of the golden age of Piracy " is not much talked about here. Only toward the 200-ish pages is the notion approached.

And for a book with "Henry Avery" named on the front, too many pages were given to Defoe, him not being the person that made me interested in reading this book.

There were also a lot of repetitive expressions used throughout the book, which I found off putting.

Overall the beginning is captivating, but it loses its momentum around 100 pages in and never quite catches it back.

[Lois · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book but sadly it didn't deliver. I confess that I skim-read/mostly skipped the last 100 pages as I grew very wary of what was being said, and didn't want to take in anything else that was likely untrue. It would perhaps be more fitting if it were classed as "historical fiction" rather than "history". As soon as we started delving deep into Henry Avery or Daniel Defoe's inner musings, I knew we were in trouble.

[Enrique J. Rojas · Rating 3 out of 5]

"You must know, that I am Captain of this ship now, and this is my cabin"

Strengths: Henry Avery's Pirate career is really interesting. If you like history there's tons of cool nuggets in here.

weaknesses: The force connection to Dafoe felt out of place, each chapter focused on him felt like I was reading a second book in between chapters. I think the book would also benefit if it leaned more on narrative than simply quoting a lot of stuff. Can't tell if the book wanted to be a narrative or a textbook and that really got in the way of the reading.

[Mark Owens · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF. An interesting story very poorly told.

[Cinna_the_Poet · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bro what did I just read….?? If I wanted a meandering, make-believe tale I’d read One Piece.

[sam · Rating 2 out of 5]

minus four stars for somehow making henry avery boring, extra star for calling daniel defoe a cross dressing bisexual

[Steve Robichaud · Rating 4 out of 5]

would give it 3.5 or 3.75 really, skimmed near the end but has some interesting history!

[David Jones · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dnf. It wasn’t looking good when it was citing A General History of the Pyrates as fact.

[Noel Chevalier · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a dishonest book--it pretends to be a scholarly history, with careful footnotes and a short bibliography, and all of the trappings of scholarly works, but in reality it's a piece of pure nonsense, eked out by a supposed letter from Captain Avery, and a fabricated story about Avery's friendship with Daniel Defoe, some smuggling and pirating, and a story in parts so sensational you'd swear it couldn't be true. Because it isn't.

Well, not all of it is fiction. Henry Every (or Avery) really did attack Aurangzeb's flagship and make off with a massive prize. He really did cause an international incident between Mughal India and the East India Company, to the point that open trade was seriously affected. Avery also vanished without being brought to trial, although the story of his laundering diamonds with some unscrupulous Bristol merchants, who fleeced him and left him penniless, is likely a story made up for "Charles Johnson's" General History of the Pyrates, which is the only place the story appears.

But so much else in this book is just plain wrong. Watch the footnotes carefully. When Kingsley and Cowan are describing Defoe's early business activities, they lean heavily on F. Bastian's 1981 book, The Early Life of Daniel Defoe--that's OK, although corroborating Bastian with information from either Paula Backscheider's or Max Novak's scholarly biographies would have been better. When they come to describe Defoe's friendship with Avery, there are no footnotes. Why? Because there's no evidence the two men ever even met. Kingsley and Cowan even slip out of historical narrative mode into something like cheesy romance novel mode, describing Defoe's actions and feelings, adding colourful little details here and there, as if signalling to the reader that they're in the realm of fiction.

Worse than that, though, are the outright lies. The authors claim, for example, that a 1712 play very loosely based on Avery, The Successful Pyrate, was actually a collaboration between Defoe and Avery, written under a pen name. That name? Charles Johnson, of course--the same name that would be used in 1724 as the author of General History of the Pyrates. They even flatly state that Charles Johnson the playwright is otherwise unknown, which is blatantly false: Johnson was fairly active in the early decades of the eighteenth century--several of his plays were performed and published, and we have records of his activities at Drury Lane Theatre. No one has ever doubted that The Successful Pyrate was written by the same person who wrote The Force of Friendship, and The Wife's Relief, and several other plays and afterpieces. Apart from The Successful Pyrate no one bothers to read his plays now; they weren't exactly blockbuster hits back then, either--but that doesn't mean Johnson himself didn't exist.

Earlier on, Kingsley and Cowan spend a lot of time discussing Samuel Annesley, the son of a famous clergyman who actually did know Defoe. Annesley junior was a rising star in the East India Company at the time of Avery's plundering of the Mughal ships, and had to deal with some of the fallout. There is one book on Annesley, written by Arnold Wright and published in 1918--and, of course, much of the information in this book derives from Wright. Except: Kingsley and Cowan dramatically state that Annesley mysteriously vanished in 1723, "never to be heard from again." Wright, however, flatly asserts that Annesley never disappeared, his life up to his death in 1734 is well documented, as is his last will. Wright even plainly decalres that the "mystery of Annesley's last days is no mystery," and he debunks the stories of Annesley somehow vanishing off a ship bound for England. Kingsley and Cowan intentionally deceive the reader, by placing an endnote reference to Wright's book--page 317--directly after a detailed description of the state of the "vanished" Annesley's cabin when it was finally opened. Except--a look at page 317 contains no such description, or even any mention of Annesley being on a ship, but it does contain some information about Annesley's request to his brother-in-law to help him out financially, which is included earlier in Kingsley and Cowan's paragraph. A reader who doesn't take the time to double-check the citations--and how many readers are going to do that?--can be easily duped into thinking Wright has endorsed their fictions. How much of this occurs throughout the text I have neither the time nor the desire to check, but I would imagine Kingsley and Cowan frequently play fast and loose with even their sources.

Either all of this is just extremely sloppy scholarship on Kinglsey and Cowan's part, in which case, you have to take what they say about this newly-discovered "Avery letter" with a grain of salt, or it's a deliberate attempt not to let facts get in the way of a good story, in which case you also have to take what they say about this newly-discovered "Avery letter" with a grain of salt. Whatever the reality is of this mysterious letter, upon which the whole book really depends, it's impossible to trust anything these authors say after so much flagrant fabrication and scholarly dishonesty.

There is a lot of excellent, first-rate pirate research out there, and we are beginning to understand much about both real pirate life and the fictions that have been around as long as the pirates themselves have been. This book, however, is dangerous to serious research, since, to use a phrase sometimes attributed to Samuel Johnson (erroneously!), "the book is both original and good; but what is good is not original, and what is original is not good."

And Defoe didn't write General History of the Pyrates, either. Let's put that one to bed forever.

[Margueritte · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is split between the history of Avery and the history of Daniel DeFoe. The main story is to show how they became spies. I didn’t care for the writing style and ended up skipping through the book. It is hard to tell how much of this is based on solid fact.

[Bruce · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting story but told in a confusing way, jumping forward then backwards again. Also very poorly edited. Misspelled words and in a couple of cases the editor’s mark ups a still in the printed text. Never seen that before.

[Madison Maler (anxious.librarian)]

Uncharted fans say heyyyyyy!

[Microsoft Excel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I use the term “non-fiction” loosely.

[Cindy Vallar · Rating 5 out of 5]

He leads a mutiny in the last decade of the 17th century. He captures a ship belonging to the Indian emperor. The garnered treasure makes him very rich. As a result of this single act, he becomes the world’s first most-wanted criminal. Then he simply disappears. His name is Henry Avery, and these are the basic facts that appear in pirate histories. None satisfactorily answer the questions of who he was and what became of him.

Fast forward to 1978. Cowan and his wife are searching for a shipwreck off Orkney, and Zélide is doing a deep dive into the Scottish archives for information. One misfiled document catches her attention. It is a letter, partially encoded and written by “Avery the Pirate,” four years after he disappeared. She spends a decade tracking down its authenticity before other shipwrecks necessitate the Cowans’ complete attention. Then, in 2020, Kingsley mentions “pirates” during a visit with Rex Cowan. This book reveals what they discovered about Henry Avery and his connection to Daniel Defoe, a master spy and disseminator of misinformation, and Dr. Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury.

A Pirate King reads like a novel, even though it’s both a biography and a history. While the details on how the research was done are briefly covered, the primary foci are on the players, the influences that led them along the paths they took, and the wider picture of world events that had direct and indirect bearing on them. It is essentially a mystery story that convincingly reveals what happened to this most-wanted pirate, why he was never caught and punished, and how he fell in with a Dissenter who often found himself penniless and evading creditors.

In some regards, this depiction of Avery deviates with previously published books on the pirate. Instead, it portrays him as a more complex person and provides rationales for why he went on the account and why he joined forces with Defoe and Tenison. Using a 1709 publication (written by an author whose identity can’t be verified) to show Avery’s mindset during the pillaging of the Ganj-i-Sawai is somewhat questionable. It does, however, add to the smoke screen that the authors suggest was created to divert people’s attention away from the real Avery and his whereabouts.

The book includes a timeline, a center section of illustrations, a list for further reading, an index, and notes. The illustrations include photographs of the Avery letter, while one note includes an interesting hypothesis as to the identity of Captain Charles Johnson, the author of A General History of Pyrates (1724).

I have read several books on Henry Avery over the years, but The Pirate King is by far the most absorbing and compelling. It fills in the blanks that other volumes have, answering not just the who but also the why and how. Another key component is that the lives and deeds of Avery and Defoe are not related in vacuums. Instead, they unfold within the events and politics of the day to provide readers with a broader, more understandable perspective. In essence they have done what Richard Lawrence wrote to code breaker John Wallis in 1657: “If you can finde out a key whereby to picke this locke, you are able to reade any thinge.”


(This review first appeared at Pirates and Privateers: http://www.cindyvallar.com/Kingsley.html)

[Eduardo · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is about Henry Avery–the pirate who pulled off the Gunsway Heist, and then disappeared, launching the world’s first international manhunt, and being one of the few big name pirates who was never caught. After the discovery of a coded letter in a Scottish archive from ‘Avery the Pirate’, the authors work from there to uncover the truth of what happened to the Pirate King: working with Daniel Defoe to become a spy for the English crown.

All told, I must say that I’m less than convinced.

The letter being authentic–fine, okay, I can buy that, though whether Avery himself wrote it strikes me as questionable. Why would Avery, if he was an intelligence agent, use his actual name and former occupation on a letter?

More problematic: the authors make several leaps and say that because something *might* have happened, that it definitely DID happen. This is… not great scholarship, I think. I don’t have much reason to think that Henry Avery or Daniel Defoe ever met each other, though Kingsley and Cowan insist that they did, and can tell us when, along with telling us places they’ve been at different points in history.

What’s worse is when they act as if they know how these men felt at particular points. That’s going beyond speculation, considering there’s no written record or account of how Avery felt about anything after the

The authors make a very romanticized view of Avery, overall? Painting him as a guy struggling againsts fortune, doing his best, not intending cruelty in his actions. I’m not entirely convinced. Considering the Gunsway Heist involved days worth of his crew committing torture, rape, and murder on their prisoners, them insisting that “Well, he didn’t *mean* for it to happen, and he couldn’t get them under control, but he definitely totally didn’t do any of it himself, we promise.” Uh, yeah, I’m not buying it.

Him potentially being a spy for the English crown doesn’t endear Avery to me either, given that I’m not really a fan of the English royal family in general, and definitely not at that point in which the king wasn’t even English. There’s an excerpt of a piece of propaganda by Defoe about how great King William was, explaining that even though he’s Dutch, he’s a stand-up monarch who cares about The People… by beating down the Britons, Scots, and Irish who threatened them. Y’know, the ones who are actually native to the British Isles. Class act, Defoe.

Side note: they also insist that Charles Johnson didn’t exist, and that he was a pen name for Daniel Defoe? That was a popular theory for a large chunk of the 20th century, though it’s fallen out of favor. I don’t know that they do anything to argue for their view other than it fits with what they want to say about Avery.

If this had been a novel, I would have more readily accepted it. It could be a fun adventure along the lines of “License to Quill”. As it is, I was not swayed by the argument, and I think there needs to be a lot more work and evidence before the authors can say with any certainty that any of this happened.

[Zandt McCue · Rating 4 out of 5]

In accordance with the guiding principles that govern my pursuits, any novel information pertaining to pirates demands my undivided attention and an unwavering commitment to exploration. The enigma surrounding Henry Avery, often referred to as the "Pirate King," has remained conspicuously absent from historical records, in stark contrast to the fate that befell many of his notorious contemporaries, who met their end through death, shipwrecks, or royal pardons. Astonishingly, Avery's narrative abruptly concludes without a definitive resolution.

In "The Pirate King," co-authored by Sean Kingsley and Rex Cowan, a concerted effort is made to elucidate the fate of the legendary Captain Avery. While I must acknowledge the thorough storytelling of Avery's formative years leading up to his grand exploits as a pirate, the assertion that Avery transitioned into a covert operative collaborating with figures such as Dafoe and Tenison leaves me somewhat skeptical.

Setting aside my reservations momentarily, I appreciate the narrative's vivid portrayal of Avery's life journey, a testament to the skill of historians and researchers capable of breathing life into historical figures. Intriguingly, the focus on Daniel Defoe's role in this account almost overshadows Avery himself, leading one to consider whether this could be more aptly characterized as a biography of Defoe rather than Avery.

My expectation for additional insights into the mysterious coded letter discovered in the narrative was left unfulfilled. The absence of further documentation or concrete evidence establishing the interconnections among the characters left me desiring more substantiation. Although I am reluctant to delve into specifics and prefer to encourage readers to explore the book firsthand, the coherence of the narrative raises questions for me. Notably, the purported acquaintance between Defoe and Avery during their youth lacks a definitive foundation, despite the extensive references provided in the book. The meticulous citation of numerous passages throughout underscores the authors' commitment, but certain key points appear devoid of supporting citations.

In my assessment, "The Pirate King" represents a noteworthy contribution to the ongoing quest for the truth behind Henry Avery's disappearance. However, my acceptance of the proposed theory remains provisional, pending the emergence of additional evidence.

[Zachary Starr · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The Pirate King” by Henry Avery and Rex Cowan tells the story of the legendary pirate, Henry Avery, and his supposed friendship with acclaimed author and propagandist, William Defoe. Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the narrative of this book. It reads like Wikipedia, which I recognize is not the best style for everyone. But for a young scholar like myself, it’s thoroughly enjoyable.

Much of this book is speculative and to the untrained eye, the authors don’t convey this well. I find their main conclusion plausible, but I do not think it should be taken as fact. While I am convinced that Henry Avery likely ended up back in Cornwall after his heist, the specific details on his encounters and character in relation to Defoe are highly speculative and lack sufficient supporting evidence. Additionally, the authors begin the novel by stating that Archbishop Tennison will play a much greater role and he is mentioned in only two chapters towards the end.

I appreciated the exploration of the political intrigue of the time, but again, I am still unconvinced of the attempts to tie Henry Avery to all of this. However, if he was that great of a spy, which is totally plausible, then maybe the authors can’t help but write this without being so speculative.

Overall this reads like someone’s doctoral thesis and that’s okay! All thesis are subject to questioning and eventually being proven wrong, this being no exception. For those who enjoy naval history, this is a great read. For more casual readers, maybe skip this one.

[Dylan Tynes · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Pirate King is the right kind of narrative history for a casual read if you are learned in history but not an expert in piracy or late 17th-century England. I picked it up because it purports to resolve a centuries-old mystery about which I had previously read in passing, and I kept reading because Kingsley’s prose kept my attention in a swashbuckling tale of piracy, espionage, and intrigue. It’s not a piece of academic history, so I cannot judge the merits of its historical arguments regarding Henry Avery’s motives and ultimate whereabouts, but the Kingsley and Cowan have assembled a compelling narrative that places the enigma of Avery’s disappearance within the era’s religious and political context. The non-linearity of the narrative was a bit distracting at times, though it’s certainly clearer than many modern novels, and the final few chapters are not as action-packed as those that begin the book, but Kingsley and Cowan are presenting their original findings in those sections, and as a historian myself, I found them captivating in their implications and insights. Overall, I think the book is a great read for those looking to indulge a childhood (or adult!) interest in pirates and learn something new about one of history’s greatest and most mysterious captains under the black flag, though its structure as a swashbuckling, fast-paced narrative grafted onto a slower, more insightful second-half renders it slightly muddled in tone. Four stars: great book.

[Nicholas Gallo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very neat book detailing the known history of two famous and interesting men. The back half though, where it attempts to deliver on its promise of telling you what happens to Henry Avery, feels lacking. Feels more of an extrapolation based on one out of context letter, with no real attempts to justify itself. Just kind of saying that "we found one coded letter that means all this is certainly what played out". Would have been nice to see some of their thought process as to why they are so sure that Avery would be tied up in these schemes, or any real proof at all that he might have attended these events in person, if it all. Or even something to give confidence that the supposed letter is actually from Avery, and not a code name or a pseudonym. A cool recap of the known history of Avery and DeFoe, but just doesn't do a good job convincing me that it knows what actually happened afterward.