A Child's History of England

by Charles Dickens

If you look at a Map of the World, you will see, in the left-hand upper corner of the Eastern Hemisphere, two Islands lying in the sea. They are England and Scotland, and Ireland. England and Scotland form the greater part of these Islands. Ireland is the next in size. The little neighbouring islands, which are so small upon the Map as to be mere dots, are chiefly little bits of Scotland, --broken off, I dare say, in the course of a great length of time, by the power of the restless water...

Genres: History, Classics, Nonfiction, Childrens, British Literature, Literature, 19th Century

Paperback

First published January 1, 1854

About the author

Charles John Huffam Dickens (1812-1870) was a writer and social critic who created some of the world's best-known fictional characters and is regarded as the greatest novelist of the Victorian era. His works enjoyed unprecedented popularity during his lifetime, and by the twentieth century critics and scholars had recognised him as a literary genius. His novels and short stories enjoy lasting popularity.

Dickens left school to work in a factory when his father was incarcerated in a debtors' prison. Despite his lack of formal education, he edited a weekly journal for 20 years, wrote 15 novels, five novellas, hundreds of short stories and non-fiction articles, lectured and performed extensively, was an indefatigable letter writer, and campaigned vigorously for children's rights, education, and other social reforms.

Dickens was regarded as the literary colossus of his age. His 1843 novella, A Christmas Carol, remains popular and continues to inspire adaptations in every artistic genre. Oliver Twist and Great Expectations are also frequently adapted, and, like many of his novels, evoke images of early Victorian London. His 1859 novel, A Tale of Two Cities, set in London and Paris, is his best-known work of historical fiction. Dickens's creative genius has been praised by fellow writers—from Leo Tolstoy to George Orwell and G. K. Chesterton—for its realism, comedy, prose style, unique characterisations, and social criticism. On the other hand, Oscar Wilde, Henry James, and Virginia Woolf complained of a lack of psychological depth, loose writing, and a vein of saccharine sentimentalism. The term Dickensian is used to describe something that is reminiscent of Dickens and his writings, such as poor social conditions or comically repulsive characters.

On 8 June 1870, Dickens suffered another stroke at his home after a full day's work on Edwin Drood. He never regained consciousness, and the next day he died at Gad's Hill Place. Contrary to his wish to be buried at Rochester Cathedral "in an inexpensive, unostentatious, and strictly private manner," he was laid to rest in the Poets' Corner of Westminster Abbey. A printed epitaph circulated at the time of the funeral reads: "To the Memory of Charles Dickens (England's most popular author) who died at his residence, Higham, near Rochester, Kent, 9 June 1870, aged 58 years. He was a sympathiser with the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed; and by his death, one of England's greatest writers is lost to the world." His last words were: "On the ground", in response to his sister-in-law Georgina's request that he lie down.

(from Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd like to meet the child that this is written for--the young William Thackeray? The young William James? The young Trevelyan, most likely. Or Macaulay. I have read in English history for decades, but especially social history--the Canons of 1604 and how they enlighten a reading of Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, or Judge Henry Swinburne's Spousals. And I must say, Dickens' account is intricate and intriguing.

Like the novelist he is, he imbues the kings and their favorites with character and individuality. He also avoids the historian's supposed objectivity, intruding of a certain king, "The plain truth is, that he was a most intolerable ruffian, a disgrace to human nature, and a blot of blood and grease upon the History of England." Guess who. Henry VIII.
Though most of my professional literary studies started after this king, I have followed 16C heresy a bit--in G. H. Williams' Radical Reformation, and in regard to my books on G Bruno--but I never realized this: "He (H.VIII) defied the Pope and his Bull...; but he burned innumerable people whose only offense was that they differed from the Pope's religious opinions."(Ch.XXVIII)

Dickens' account of the murder in the cathedral familiar to students of TS Eliot (whom my dissertation advisor Leonard Unger wrote many books about) struck me as clearer than Eliot's play, which is pretty clear.
Okay, maybe Dickens' story here is simpler, a child's story. (But it is still intricate, with Beckett avoiding all the escapes he was offered.)

[K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review of A Child’s History of England by Charles Dickens

My actual edition of this book is part of “The Works of Charles Dickens, with Illustrations, Cleartype Edition, Books, Inc; 1868 (date is questionable)”…I hestitated to turn down corners, but did one or two.
If only history could always be this fun. Oh me, what do you get when you add Charles Dickens + English history? Truly, a history for the people, sir! In more ways than one!

How so, you ask?

1) Totally readable. Written for children. True, not most of our poor children reared on a steady diet of Captain Underpants, but perhaps not as difficult for the vocabulary challenged as other works by same author. In fact, one source says this work was used as curricula in British schools until WWII. Lucky little brats.

2) Charles Dickens, always a champion of "the people" writes this book as a chronology of English monarchs beginning from ancient times (50 B.C.) to James the 2nd (1688). As such, although we are given a glimpse of the Kings and such, more, we are also given a glimpse of how said Kings affected the lives of their subjects. True, never is it much a chronicle of individual commoners as it is of the Kings, but we are shown what life was like under each Merry (or not so Merry) Monarch. Sadly, it's not a pretty picture. Not many of them were truly Merry. If they were, it was at the expense of the people.

3) Reads like a novel, although it is said to be fairly accurate. Of course it doesn't give all the details (that would fill volumes) but it is always interesting and fast-paced. That’s fantastic as history, at least for me.

4) Bloody, sir. Enough to happily employ the mind of any imaginative (but not overly-sensitive) child of 11 or so. Good gracious, the times were abominable for blood. Burnings. Beatings. Quarterings. Drawings. Hangings. Torturings. Incarceratings. You name it. They were pretty horrible. Imagine a ferocious Irish Chieftain biting off the nose of his dead enemy in glee. Egad. That said, if I may interject a personal opinion, they were no worse than we are sometimes. Sure, we don’t go for physical torture and mass peasant killing these days so much, but we have created all sorts of ways to emotionally and mentally torture each other and especially ourselves. If our day were written of candidly, perhaps the deeds told would be more of how we poison our bodies with anti-food, or our spirits with pornography, or our minds with obsessions for perfection or unattainable realities, or each other with coldness and apathy and judgement. Today’s ills seem certainly a more personal picture, but nonetheless earth-life is as sad as it ever was. I don’t know which I would choose had I the choice. (That sounds really doomsday, didn’t mean to, because I do think the world is still pretty awesome, but was just comparing the times.)

5) Um, people, it’s written by Charles Dickens. Okay, I know some of you aren’t as in love with him as I am (poor you!) but, ‘pon my soul, it’s good reading.

Here is a fun anecdote on how Britain became a Christian nation:

Chapter II “Ancient England Under the Early Saxons”

“After the death of ETHELBERT, EDWIN, King of Northumbria, who was such a good king….held a great council to consider whether he and his people should all be Christians or not. It was decided that they should be. COIFI, the chief priest of the old religion, made a great speech on the occasion. In this discourse, he told the people that he had found out the old gods to be impostors. ‘I am quite satisfied of it,’ he said. ‘Look at me! I have been serving them all my life, and they have done nothing for me; whereas, if they had been really powerful, they could not have decently done less, in return for all I have done for them, than make my fortune. As they have never made my fortune, I am quite convinced they are impostors!’ When this singular priest had finished speaking, he hastily armed himself with sword and lance, mounted a war-horse, rode at a furious gallop in sight of all the people to the temple, and flung his lance against it as an insult. From that time, the Christian religion spread itself among the Saxons, and became their faith.”

All in all, wonderful. Truly had FUN reading it, and history + me doesn’t usually equally fun.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 3 out of 5]

There’s a strange irony to this book. Written by one of England’s most dramatic and impassioned writers, A Child’s History of England is anything but childlike—or, for that matter, breezy bedtime reading. And yet, for me, it became precisely that.

Back in Class 8 or 9, already besotted with both the eccentricities of English history and the eccentricities of Sir Charles Dickens himself, I picked up this book expecting Tudors and Plantagenets to come galloping out of the pages with full Dickensian pomp. What I got instead was a curiously moralistic, slightly sardonic, and oddly soporific chronicle of monarchs and misdeeds.

And that’s exactly what I loved. It didn’t excite me—it soothed me. When the day had been too long, or the algebra too confusing, or the world too much with me, I’d curl up with this book. Two pages in, and it was as if Dickens himself were gently closing my eyes, murmuring about King John and Magna Carta as lullabies.

"It is a melancholy truth that even great men have their poor relations."

This line, nestled in another Dickens work, somehow also fits this book—because A Child’s History feels like the more sedate, introverted cousin of Oliver Twist and David Copperfield. Not a novel, not quite a textbook, not a sermon—but some hybrid of all three.

I’ve returned to it over the years. Not to study it, but to feel its steady pulse. In a world of loud, sprawling historical tomes, this one whispers. And sometimes, that’s what one needs—a whisper from the past, filtered through Dickens’ brilliant, slightly sleepy lens.

[Julia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be thoroughly fascinating! Dickens takes us from the early beginnings of England all the way up to his era, monarchy by monarchy. I doubt if many parents of our day would hand this book to their children; it is full of the violence, hatred, and vengeance of kings against their rivals, fathers against sons, brothers against brothers, uncles against nephews, Catholics against Protestants, neighboring regions against each other, and one thing I learned is that I never would want to be related to royalty, or even be their close friend... it's much too dangerous! Many interesting stories and anecdotes. I listened to this on a free download from Librivox.org.

[Octavia Cade · Rating 4 out of 5]

Charles Dickens is a judgemental bitch, and I love him for it. You only have to read his novels to know that he was judgemental, and that all his contempt was reserved for those who mistreated the weak. His rants on the evils of poverty, for instance, are many and heartfelt. It is no surprise, then, that in his volume of English history, written for children, his sympathies are almost entirely for the common people, who are starved, murdered, exploited, and forced into wars in the service of rulers who are as vicious as they are cruel, and who are almost to a man utterly untrustworthy. When he actually approves of a ruler it is a notable thing.

This book is nearly 400 pages of scorn and disgust, a series of extremely unflattering portraits of rather repulsive people. I do believe my favourite description relates to Henry the Eighth, whom Dickens calls as "a most intolerable ruffian, a disgrace to human nature, and a blot of blood and grease upon the History of England." There's more than one place where he describes the inexplicable survival of one of the royal louts and their lackeys and admits it might have been better for everyone had a raging mob pulled them to bits (I rather got the sense of wistful sighs). And, you know, those near 400 pages of inflicted miseries can become a little repetitive, and the history itself is very thin and not perhaps completely accurate, but the judgemental bitching, and the general humanism behind the complaints, makes it worth the read.

[Linda Galella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Considering this book was written in the mid 1800’s, it is surprisingly easy to read. Dickens wrote it for children but in today’s world, they would not be the target audience unless it was an high school history class or student looking for specifics on English monarchs.

There are 37 chapters beginning before the birth of Christ with discussions of the Phoenicians, Druids and then Romans before moving on to Saxons and then into individual rulers. It closes with Queen Victoria in 1837 who was married to Prince Albert in 1840. In between the two extremes, are brief summaries of each ruler and the highlights of their time in power.

Dickens is highly opinionated. He’s a champion for the people and is not shy about calling out the shortcomings of the monarchy. I wonder how he would have fared if his opinions were shared openly during the ruler’s reign.

As far as using this volume today - it would make a good supplement for studying English History, a la Cliffs Notes, if you will. It’s not a book to sit down and read straight thru for entertainment. Dickens provides what he considers the highlights of each monarch’s reign. You won’t find intimate details or strategy that historians would fill out their volumes with. This isn’t quite a Tik Tok treatise but it’s concise.

The version I read was published in 2015 by Open Road Integrated Media. It is well edited and contains few, if any, errors; a great achievement in public domain publishing 📚

[raffaela · Rating 4 out of 5]

A charming little book. Dickens uses his narrative prowess in telling England's history -- and has his own moralistic, and often entertaining, spin on the people and events therein. The end result reads much like the book of Kings.

[Bettie · Rating 2 out of 5]

[Ana Maisuradze · Rating 4 out of 5]

წიგნი ნამდვილად ინფორმაციულია, უბრალოდ, თანდათან მოსაწყენი ხდება. ავტორს თუ დავუჯერებთ, რაში ეჭვის შეტანის საფუძველი არ გვაქვს, ინგლისის სამეფო ხე მთლიანად დამპალი ვაშლებით ყოფილა და უნძლული. :) ალბათ იგივე სურათს მივიღებთ ყველა სხვა ქვეყნის მეფეთა ისტორიის გადახ��დვისასაც. თუმცა იყვნენ შედარებით ნორმალური მონარქებიც. ყველაზე მეტად რიჩარდ ლომგულის ამბავმა გამაკვირვა. სხვა ყველა ავტორი, ეკრანიზაცია და ლეგენდა მასზე მხოლოდ დადებითად საუბრობს. აქ კი ტახტის ხამი და სისხლმოწყურებული მხეცია. ისტორიკოსი არ ვარ, თუმცა იყო რაღაც უზუსტობები, მაგ. ჰენრი მერვეზე არსად უხსენებია, რომ მისი ცოლებისადმი სისასტიკის მთავარი მიზეზი იყო მისი სურვილი, ჰყოლოდა ვაჟი. მის მეოთხე ცოლთან დაკავშირებითაც უზუსტობაა. ჰოლანდიელი ქალი არა მეფემ, არამედ თავად ამ ქალმა დაიწუნა თავიდან და ეს ძალიან ეწყინა მეფეს, რის გამოც თავადაც აუცრუვდა გული. ზუსტად ეხლახანს ვუყურე ისტორიულ ფილმს ტიუდორებზე და იმიტომ მახსოვს. ალბათ სხვა უზუსტობებიცაა სხვა მეფეებთან მიმართებაში, თუმცა ჯამში კმაყოფილი ვარ წიგნით.

აშკარაა ჯორჯ მარტინის მიერ აღებული ინსპირაცია ვესტეროსში მომხდარ არაერთ მოვლენაზე. თან მხოლოდ ტარგარიენებს არ ვგულისხმობ.

უნდა ვახსენო თარგმანი. პირველივე სტრიქონებში და მერეც ყურს მჭრიდა სიტყვა "სკოტლანდია". 😩 დავიჯერო მთარგმნელებმა არ იციან, რომ ქართულად ეგ შოტლანდიაა? 🤔 შეიძლება, გეოგრაფია მათი ძლიერი მხარე არ არის 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had no idea Dickens had written a history book. It is supposed to be for children but the children at his time must have been very bright to work their way through this volume. It is mostly history as the nineteenth century thought history should be written. Mainly as the history of kings (and some queens). If it were not for the short time of the Commonwealth.

The first chapters read almost like fantasy especially the tale of the seven boy kings. He tells romanic stories or legends if there are any even when he himself is in doubt of the historic authenticity. So one should not really trust Dickens as a historian. (The Crusades he says for example were fought against the Turks.)

Maybe the most astonishing thing about the book is that nearly all the kings are seen as really very bad (morally) with the exception of Alfred the Great. Even Richard I. is described as evil. And Henry VIII was not much better according to Dickens. Although he got rid of the religion of the Pope (which being a true Englishman he of course despises).

It is Edward the First who seems to have been the best king and about him he has this to say: “If King Edward the First had been as bad a king to Christians as he was to Jews, he would have been bad indeed. But he was, in general, a wise and great monarch, under whom the country much improved.”

The Jews were thrown out of England under him.On the whole Dickens seems to be sympathetic to the Jews but he was a child of his time too: “Many years elapsed before the hope of gain induced any of their race to return to England.”

7/10

[Dhsparkman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dickens is usually known as a novelist, but you can forget that here. The book is exactly what it purports to be, except that it has Charles Dickens as the author! True, at times he seems to actually write for a child in this book, but those times are relatively few.
Dickens actually does the whole of English history, right up to 1688, where he ended this tome, before it touched too many people in high places in the wrong places. He writes as a patriotic, yet critical Englishman, and retains all of the criticism which made him so beloved a writer of his time. An enduring feel for the common man, yet able to deal with the themes of power politics, the Child's History is written as a basic chronology, without great swathes of analysis, yet full of anecdotes and just great stories, a true Dickensian masterpiece. Any adult will come away from this book with a very good knowledge of basic English history, and not feel as if he/she were reading a text below their level.
The book has been criticised, especially by Douglas in his "The Island", but Douglas is grinding his own axes there, well, but in vain. If I were asked to recommend one book on English history for someone new to the subject to read, I would recommend this one without hesitation. It offers a profound insight into not just the history, but the character of the English people that is not found elsewhere.

[Carl]

I was on the airplane returning from Iceland when I started this. I realized that a "child's" knowledge of English history is more than I have, so this has not been familiar ground to me. Dickens empathy for the lower classes comes through again and again. The book undoubtedly has more descriptions of beheadings than any other "children's" book ever written.

If you don't feel like reading one of the long novels but are in the mood for some CD, then I'd recommend this book. Highly opinionated, not scholarly, but not boring or bland either. Dickens is willing to vilify the bad English kings as well as praise the good.

Final comment: all the various slaughters that were occasioned by religious/ethnic strife: Catholics vs. Protestants . . . Scots vs. English . . . Irish vs. English . . . brings to mind the present craziness in the Mideast. It wasn't that long ago that Europe was quite similar.

[Martha]

While this book was written for children of Dickens' time, no one under High School age should attempt this book, and have a dictionary close at hand. I found that Dickens was very ethnocentrist in favor of the Saxons, something that I would not have supposed before reading this. This is included in The Complete Charles Dickens Collection on my Kindle.

[Luann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe more like 4.5 stars - We (16 yo son, 14 yo daughter, 11 year old son, and I) really enjoyed reading this aloud together. Dickens's side remarks were especially fun.

[Becky · Rating 3 out of 5]

What a treat to discover Charles Dickens' A Child's History of England. I enjoyed Dickens style. I liked the action and characterization. It was also rich in description. Here's the first sentence,

"In the old days, a long, long while ago, before Our Saviour was born on earth and lay asleep in a manger, these Islands were in the same place, and the stormy sea roared round them, just as it roars now. But the sea was not alive, then, with great ships and brave sailors, sailing to and from all parts of the world. It was very lonely. The Islands lay solitary, in the great expanse of water. The foaming waves dashed against their cliffs, and the bleak winds blew over their forests; but the winds and waves brought no adventurers to land upon the Islands, and the savage Islanders knew nothing of the rest of the world, and the rest of the world knew nothing of them."

Not that every sentence is that scripted or forced. The book itself is very readable. The chapters are rarely--if ever--boring. That being said, some chapters are more exciting than others.

I recently read Jane Austen's History of England. Dickens is definitely partial and prejudiced in his historical approach as well, even, if his book tries (with varying success) to carry more authority and substance. While I think Austen approached her work in fun with a good amount of playfulness, Dickens takes his subject much more seriously. While one can entertain doubts that Austen truly means every word she wrote in A History of England, Dickens opinions, which are even harsher in some ways, sound genuine enough. For better or worse. I don't have a problem with historians having opinions, and being passionate about the subject. But it's always nice to know that they know it's all so very subjective. Dickens and I would definitely disagree in places!!! Especially when he includes women in his history. And especially about Richard III!

Strengths:
Begins around the time of the Romans, ends around 1688 Revolution
Covers centuries of stories and legends and facts
Mainly focuses on royalty
Seeks to explain big subjects simply
Written with emphasis on characters and personalities
Shows the subjectivity of history

Quotes:

Hengist and Horsa drove out the Picts and Scots; and Vortigern, being grateful to them for that service, made no opposition to their settling themselves in that part of England which is called the Isle of Thanet, or to their inviting over more of their countrymen to join them. But Hengist had a beautiful daughter named Rowena; and when, at a feast, she filled a golden goblet to the brim with wine, and gave it to Vortigern, saying in a sweet voice, ‘Dear King, thy health!’ the King fell in love with her. My opinion is, that the cunning Hengist meant him to do so, in order that the Saxons might have greater influence with him; and that the fair Rowena came to that feast, golden goblet and all, on purpose.

But the Duke showed so little inclination to do so now, that he proposed to Canute to marry his sister, the widow of The Unready; who, being but a showy flower, and caring for nothing so much as becoming a queen again, left her children and was wedded to him.

The King’s brother, Robert of Normandy, seeming quite content to be only Duke of that country; and the King’s other brother, Fine-Scholar, being quiet enough with his five thousand pounds in a chest; the King flattered himself, we may suppose, with the hope of an easy reign. But easy reigns were difficult to have in those days. [The King was William II]

Although King Stephen was, for the time in which he lived, a humane and moderate man, with many excellent qualities; and although nothing worse is known of him than his usurpation of the Crown, which he probably excused to himself by the consideration that King Henry the First was a usurper too — which was no excuse at all; the people of England suffered more in these dread nineteen years, than at any former period even of their suffering history. In the division of the nobility between the two rival claimants of the Crown, and in the growth of what is called the Feudal System (which made the peasants the born vassals and mere slaves of the Barons), every Noble had his strong Castle, where he reigned the cruel king of all the neighbouring people. Accordingly, he perpetrated whatever cruelties he chose. And never were worse cruelties committed upon earth than in wretched England in those nineteen years. The writers who were living then describe them fearfully. They say that the castles were filled with devils rather than with men; that the peasants, men and women, were put into dungeons for their gold and silver, were tortured with fire and smoke, were hung up by the thumbs, were hung up by the heels with great weights to their heads, were torn with jagged irons, killed with hunger, broken to death in narrow chests filled with sharp-pointed stones, murdered in countless fiendish ways. In England there was no corn, no meat, no cheese, no butter, there were no tilled lands, no harvests. Ashes of burnt towns, and dreary wastes, were all that the traveller, fearful of the robbers who prowled abroad at all hours, would see in a long day’s journey; and from sunrise until night, he would not come upon a home. The clergy sometimes suffered, and heavily too, from pillage, but many of them had castles of their own, and fought in helmet and armour like the barons, and drew lots with other fighting men for their share of booty. The Pope (or Bishop of Rome), on King Stephen’s resisting his ambition, laid England under an Interdict at one period of this reign; which means that he allowed no service to be performed in the churches, no couples to be married, no bells to be rung, no dead bodies to be buried. Any man having the power to refuse these things, no matter whether he were called a Pope or a Poulterer, would, of course, have the power of afflicting numbers of innocent people. That nothing might be wanting to the miseries of King Stephen’s time, the Pope threw in this contribution to the public store — not very like the widow’s contribution, as I think, when Our Saviour sat in Jerusalem over-against the Treasury, ‘and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.’

He had four sons. Henry, now aged eighteen — his secret crowning of whom had given such offence to Thomas à Becket. Richard, aged sixteen; Geoffrey, fifteen; and John, his favourite, a young boy whom the courtiers named Lackland, because he had no inheritance, but to whom the King meant to give the Lordship of Ireland. All these misguided boys, in their turn, were unnatural sons to him, and unnatural brothers to each other. Prince Henry, stimulated by the French King, and by his bad mother, Queen Eleanor, began the undutiful history, First, he demanded that his young wife, Margaret, the French King’s daughter, should be crowned as well as he. His father, the King, consented, and it was done. It was no sooner done, than he demanded to have a part of his father’s dominions, during his father’s life. This being refused, he made off from his father in the night, with his bad heart full of bitterness, and took refuge at the French King’s Court. Within a day or two, his brothers Richard and Geoffrey followed. Their mother tried to join them — escaping in man’s clothes — but she was seized by King Henry’s men, and immured in prison, where she lay, deservedly, for sixteen years. [Henry II and his children]

Nothing can make war otherwise than horrible.

Ah! happy had it been for the Maid of Orleans, if she had resumed her rustic dress that day, and had gone home to the little chapel and the wild hills, and had forgotten all these things, and had been a good man’s wife, and had heard no stranger voices than the voices of little children!

Sir Robert Brackenbury was at that time Governor of the Tower. To him, by the hands of a messenger named John Green, did King Richard send a letter, ordering him by some means to put the two young princes to death. But Sir Robert — I hope because he had children of his own, and loved them — sent John Green back again, riding and spurring along the dusty roads, with the answer that he could not do so horrible a piece of work. The King, having frowningly considered a little, called to him Sir James Tyrrel, his master of the horse, and to him gave authority to take command of the Tower, whenever he would, for twenty-four hours, and to keep all the keys of the Tower during that space of time. Tyrrel, well knowing what was wanted, looked about him for two hardened ruffians, and chose John Dighton, one of his own grooms, and Miles Forest, who was a murderer by trade. Having secured these two assistants, he went, upon a day in August, to the Tower, showed his authority from the King, took the command for four-and-twenty hours, and obtained possession of the keys. And when the black night came he went creeping, creeping, like a guilty villain as he was, up the dark, stone winding stairs, and along the dark stone passages, until he came to the door of the room where the two young princes, having said their prayers, lay fast asleep, clasped in each other’s arms. And while he watched and listened at the door, he sent in those evil demons, John Dighton and Miles Forest, who smothered the two princes with the bed and pillows, and carried their bodies down the stairs, and buried them under a great heap of stones at the staircase foot. And when the day came, he gave up the command of the Tower, and restored the keys, and hurried away without once looking behind him; and Sir Robert Brackenbury went with fear and sadness to the princes’ room, and found the princes gone for ever.

We now come to King Henry the Eighth, whom it has been too much the fashion to call ‘Bluff King Hal,’ and ‘Burly King Harry,’ and other fine names; but whom I shall take the liberty to call, plainly, one of the most detestable villains that ever drew breath. You will be able to judge, long before we come to the end of his life, whether he deserves the character.

Her bad marriage with a worse man came to its natural end. Its natural end was not, as we shall too soon see, a natural death for her.

Henry the Eighth has been favoured by some Protestant writers, because the Reformation was achieved in his time. But the mighty merit of it lies with other men and not with him; and it can be rendered none the worse by this monster’s crimes, and none the better by any defence of them. The plain truth is, that he was a most intolerable ruffian, a disgrace to human nature, and a blot of blood and grease upon the History of England.

Mary was now crowned Queen. She was thirty-seven years of age, short and thin, wrinkled in the face, and very unhealthy. But she had a great liking for show and for bright colours, and all the ladies of her Court were magnificently dressed. She had a great liking too for old customs, without much sense in them; and she was oiled in the oldest way, and blessed in the oldest way, and done all manner of things to in the oldest way, at her coronation. I hope they did her good. She soon began to show her desire to put down the Reformed religion, and put up the unreformed one: though it was dangerous work as yet, the people being something wiser than they used to be. They even cast a shower of stones — and among them a dagger — at one of the royal chaplains who attacked the Reformed religion in a public sermon. But the Queen and her priests went steadily on.

It would seem that Philip, the Prince of Spain, was a main cause of this change in Elizabeth’s fortunes. He was not an amiable man, being, on the contrary, proud, overbearing, and gloomy; but he and the Spanish lords who came over with him, assuredly did discountenance the idea of doing any violence to the Princess. It may have been mere prudence, but we will hope it was manhood and honour. The Queen had been expecting her husband with great impatience, and at length he came, to her great joy, though he never cared much for her.

She was clever, but cunning and deceitful, and inherited much of her father’s violent temper. I mention this now, because she has been so over-praised by one party, and so over-abused by another, that it is hardly possible to understand the greater part of her reign without first understanding what kind of woman she really was... The Queen always declared in good set speeches, that she would never be married at all, but would live and die a Maiden Queen. It was a very pleasant and meritorious declaration, I suppose; but it has been puffed and trumpeted so much, that I am rather tired of it myself... It is very difficult to make out, at this distance of time, and between opposite accounts, whether Elizabeth really was a humane woman, or desired to appear so, or was fearful of shedding the blood of people of great name who were popular in the country. [About Queen Elizabeth]

‘Our cousin of Scotland’ was ugly, awkward, and shuffling both in mind and person. His tongue was much too large for his mouth, his legs were much too weak for his body, and his dull goggle-eyes stared and rolled like an idiot’s. He was cunning, covetous, wasteful, idle, drunken, greedy, dirty, cowardly, a great swearer, and the most conceited man on earth... While these events were in progress, and while his Sowship was making such an exhibition of himself, from day to day and from year to year, as is not often seen in any sty... [About King James I]

Baby Charles became King Charles the First, in the twenty-fifth year of his age. Unlike his father, he was usually amiable in his private character, and grave and dignified in his bearing; but, like his father, he had monstrously exaggerated notions of the rights of a king, and was evasive, and not to be trusted. If his word could have been relied upon, his history might have had a different end... With all my sorrow for him, I cannot agree with him that he died ‘the martyr of the people;’ for the people had been martyrs to him, and to his ideas of a King’s rights, long before.

There never were such profligate times in England as under Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his swarthy, ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in his Court at Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies), drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a fashion to call Charles the Second ‘The Merry Monarch.’ Let me try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman sat upon his merry throne, in merry England.
The first merry proceeding was — of course — to declare that he was one of the greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone, like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament, in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that old disputed tonnage and poundage which had been so bravely fought for.

King James the Second was a man so very disagreeable, that even the best of historians has favoured his brother Charles, as becoming, by comparison, quite a pleasant character.

As you can see, Dickens is very, very, very opinionated! A Child's History of England is an interesting and entertaining read for the history lover.

[Natia Morbedadze · Rating 4 out of 5]

ის, რის შესწავლასაც ბრიტანელი მოსწავლეები ალბათ წლებს ანდომებენ, დიკენსმა 600 გვერდზე ნაკლებში ჩაატია. ინგლისის ისტორია უძველესი დროიდან 1688 წლის "სახელოვან რევოლუციამდე" ძალიან მოკლედ აქვს მოთხრობილი, თანაც ისე, რომ როიალისტობას ვერ დავწამებთ (მხოლოდ ოლივერ კრომველის პერიოდს აფასებს შედარებით დადებითად, მონარქებს კი ათასგვარ ნაკლს უძებნის, რაც ჩვენთვის ცოტა უცნაურია - ჩვენს ისტორიაში ხომ უმეტესად პირიქით ხდება)... ვერც იმას, რომ მოსაწყენი წიგნი შექმნა ყმაწვილებისა და ისტორიით დაინტერესებული მოზრდილებისთვის.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

At times, this was some tough sledding. It is hard to believe this was billed as a children’s book. Wow, it was brutal in many places as the King worked against a brother, a father against a son, or a brother against a brother.

My knowledge of English history caused me to struggle to keep up with the narrative. With all the earls, dukes, & lords, I got lost often. Where I was more familiar with a section of history, I followed along better.

Dickens wit & humor added a great relief to all the hangings, stabbing, & burnings. It was obvious who he didn’t like. Glad I read it but don’t think I’d ever pick it up again.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finished at last! I read this book on and off for the past year +. There were some turgid bits, but I did enjoy it when Dickens sounded off on various things, such as:

Dickens on King Henry the 8th - "The plain truth is, that he was a most intolerable ruffian, a disgrace to human nature, and a blot of blood and grease upon the History of England."

Dickens on the execution of Lady Jane Grey (ordered by "Bloody" Queen Mary Tudor) - "You know too well, now, what dreadful deeds the executioner did in England, through many many years, and how his axe descended on the hateful block through the necks of some of the bravest, wisest and best in the land. But it never struck so cruel and so vile a blow as this."

Dickens on religious differences in Elizabethan England - "Since the Reformation, there had come to be three great sects of religious people--or people who called themselves so--in England; that is to say, those who belonged to the Reformed Church, those who belonged to the Unreformed Church, and those who were called Puritans because they said that they wanted to have everything very pure and plain in all the Church service. These last were for the most part an uncomfortable people, who thought it highly meritorious to dress in a hideous manner, talk through their noses, and oppose all harmless enjoyments."

[Sandi Dickenson · Rating 5 out of 5]

My second time around reading this. The first time round I was looking for a simple to understand book synopsis of English king's and queens to round out the many shows and books portraying well known names.

This book was a winner! Enjoyed the vocabulary banter, it connected each reign to next in an understandable way and WOW! I was shocked at the graphic descriptions of human cruelty. I canmot imagine reading this in my childhood without dealing with the resulting nightmares. Nor would I have read it to my children. Yet, I realize that a whole generation has grown up now on horror films and for the most part they seem to have matured OK.

Dickens is decidedly opinionated and at times it was a slow read but for the most part, I enjoyed reading this before drifting off at bedtime. It's not the type of book that you will lose sleep trying to finish in one sitting.

Now, having read it twice, the names and events are much more ingrained while my reaction to the violence had faded a bit.
This book (downloaded from Classically and then Gutenburg) was a most entertaining good read.

[Garry · Rating 4 out of 5]

I seem to have a shine of all things British these days and after having finished the War of the Roses by Conn Iggulden I was looking for a summary of the various Kings ansd Queens of England. I found all I needed in this book. There is some good summary and anecdotes about the different rulers from Ancient England and the Romans 409 AD up to King James James the Second (1689) and the Bloody Assizes. I was surpsied to learn that a kiong had been beheaded (Charles the Ist was beheaded for high trason) and how in the many barons owned land in both England and France, especially during the Norman conquest. If you are looking to find out a summary about all the Kings and Queens and how they ruled (many poorly), then I recommend this book. I read it cover to cover and did find it dry at times and sometimes hard to get through, but I have a much better understanding now of England's History.

[Loralee · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was so fascinating to read Dickens as written to a child. There are some racial and social prejudices here, I wasn't bothered by it considering when it was written. This reminded me a lot of 'Our Island Story', which I absolutely loved. A favorite line: "He [Julius Caesar] had expected to find pearls in Britain, and he may have found a few for anything I know; but, at all events, he found delicious oysters, and I am sure he found tough Britons - of whom, I dare say, he made the same complaint as Napoleon Bonaparte the great French General did, eighteen hundred years afterwards, when he said they were such unreasonable fellows that they never knew when they were beaten. They never did know, I believe, and never will."

[Matthew Fleming · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very weak for Dickens, disturbingly patriotic, and borderline racist at times, this is a bit of a letdown. And that title is a lie: this is not a history of England, but a history of its monarchy, long confused for being the same thing. It's not though, and Dickens being such a brilliant social commentator and spokesperson for the people, I was expecting to read something far more diverse that focused on ordinary people and their lives.

However, it is Dickens, and there are a few fun gags and a nice sense of outrage at virtually every king or queen, and those two just about carried me through!

[Steve R · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting take on the pageant of British history, from King Arthur to the Revolution of 1688. A final chapter glosses over the period up to Victoria's assumption of the throne. Dickens spares no sentiment, and details a plentiful amount of the bloodthirsty, violent, murderous, vengeful and inhumane acts by the rulers of his nation. My father commented, on reading this tale of one atrocity after another, that it is a wonder Dickens supposedly intended it for children, as the title indicates. According to Wikipedia, the text was used in British classrooms well into the last century.

[Drayton Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an american this was a good primer to English history. I enjoyed it.

[Connie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Actually an excellent review of this history (at least for someone educated in America, most of this material was not stuff we learned as kids).

[Bonnie Fakhri · Rating 5 out of 5]

An informative witty history of pre-victorian England

I never realized how bloody and tumultuous England's history was. This book is a gem, not so much for the subject matter but for the brilliance of Dickens as a story teller. He makes no effort at impartiality. He liberally interjects his humor, sarcasm and wit making this a pleasure to read. I wish my history professors had possessed such a gift!

[Greta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Charles tells it like it was, and the History of England was pretty complicated and gory. There were all those people vying for power, money and land, Kings and wannabees, lots of gruesome fighting, so many heads rolling. It's good to know what went on and get the lowdown on who's who and all that, but I doubt this book would be very accessible to "children" these days. It was hard enough for me to get my head around all that went on from Ancient England up through James the Second. Too bad history has marched on but the book stopped there. I'd like to know what Mr Dickens would have had to say about the rest of England's history up to the present day.

[Davy Bennett]

Red hardback 1911. Gold letters. Collier & Son.

[Peter Krol · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started well, but I struggled to follow the audiobook about midway through.

[Leslie Reiber · Rating 3 out of 5]

if you like Victorian novels, it's nice to know as much as a contemporary English child was supposed know