The Kings and Queens of Scotland

by Timothy Venning

A complete history of the Scottish rulers, from the heads of its early constituent states and the first King of Scots Kenneth MacAlpin, to Queen Anne and the union with England Interest in Scottish kings and queens currently piqued by discussions over Scottish independence and the approaching 700th anniversary of the Battle of BannockburnThe kingdom of Scots was the last of the non-Anglo-Saxon states of Britain to survive as a political entity. Alone of the Celtic nations, it was not absorbed into England by conquest. James VI of Scotland came to the throne of England in 1603, and when union with England finally came in 1707 during the reign of Queen Anne, it was technically on equal terms. This success owed much to the abilities and tenacity of a succession of rulers, from the time that the multiplicity of states was merged into one kingdom. The story of the rulers of Scotland s constituent states and then of the united kingdom of Scots from Kenneth MacAlpin onwards is complex and often violent. It is full of rapid reversals of fortune, brilliant and incompetent leadership, family strife, and triumph and tragedy closely intertwined. The obscure earlier history is often as fascinating as the better-known stories of the Bruce and Queen Mary though less familiar. This saga of a thousand years bears tribute to the qualities of Scotland s rulers.

Genres: History, Scotland, Nonfiction, Medieval

304 pages, Paperback

First published July 19, 2013

About the author

Dr Timothy Venning is a freelance researcher and author. He studied history at Kings College, London to PhD level, winning the London University History Prize in 1979. He has written articles for the Dictionary of National Biography, as well as a book on Oliver Cromwell and reference works on British office-holders and the chronology of the Byzantine Empire. He also contributes to major biographical publications and his research forms the basis for many other publications.

Reviews

[Maurice Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

Throughout the period after there is a unified Scottish state, you get none of the impression from here as often from other sources of a sharp Lowland/Highland cultural divide. The narrative of rebellions shows them coming from any parts of the country, and that local artists having land empires with virtual private armies was just as much part of Lowland feudal politics as of clan reactions to royal politics. It is good to have the challenge for that perspective, that shows yes the Middle Ages kingdom of Scotland was a real national entity and the king's intervened all over it.

Particular interest in the description of planting a bishop, as an introducer of king's government, in Caithness around 1100 just as the Jarldom of Orkney's hold on it went down. So that even at the mainland's furthest reach, govt stepped into the vacuum and those parts were not just left in Iron Age tribal life. 4 centuries later when James IV was reasserting the monarchy onto the far north by his circuit visits to Tain, as I had read b4 in a bio of him, it was when the Lordship of the Isles was reaching the end of its time as independent, it had ruled the far north at its peak.

The narrative of which aristo was related to often gets confusing, but it's ready but to include it for the facts' particular interest to some readers: so the rest of us, understanding that, should skip those bits. But in the early part, on the Dalriada/Picts/Galloway time when kings were short lasting and always having coups for new ones, the narrative is almost wholly a tangle of jostling families, don't try to absorb the detail it just pictures the period. Anyway it should we that unification did not come from any family details, it came in reaction to the Vikings.

It is a good source on how Galloway remained constituted + used an autonomous kingdom for heirs, up to the Canmores' time. At the end of the book's period, c1690s, it is a better detailed source than I have seen before on what Scotland's govt actually was then. That had always been mysterious, it was at foreign policy odds with England hence truly independent hence their united king can't practically have been its govt. Indeed he wasn't, William just wanted Scotland attached in name to his side in Europe as a defence point, and it had its own parliamentary govt. Lords of the Articles ran it with a Secretary of State, sometimes nicknamed a Viceroy, ran it as in effect Prime Minister.

Flaws: there is nothing on parliament's emergence, thirteenth century, there should be, the narrative just gradually comes to include that kings call parlts when they need money. Nothing on the King James Bible, though James VI's breadth of cultural interests is referred to. It follows the unnecessary stuffy standard of trying to avoid repeating names twice in a sentence, that irritates when you notice it and sentences are often clearer with the repeat because it's logical. There is too much inclination to put quote marks around every figurative expression. A few factual misedits slipped in.

So is better for overview of the history's flow, than for fine detail, but a good source to combine with others and to juggle with them its different angle, seeing the story from the point of view of the forces in favour of developing government.

[Holly · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this up because I know a lot about the monarchy of England but very little about Scotland. I was specifically interested in what this book had to say about Robert the Bruce, but I wanted to see everything else too.

The writing style of this is very textbook-y. It was incredibly hard to follow along to who was who because they were always referred to by the titles rather than their names (i.e. Argyll), even as they changed down the generations. And some of them I would recognize by the surnames if they were ever used, but that almost never happened either.

It was just hard to follow. And while I appreciated that Venning allowed for some question as to someone's motives in doing a certain action, there were times when it just felt misplaced.

I was hoping for something far more engaging than this turned out to be.

[Willow · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Emma · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very dry and quite dull. I've read so much on English monarchs that the bare bones treatment of the Scottish ones just doesn't work.

[Annette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Source: Free copy from Amberley for the purpose of review.

Summary:
Beginning with the first recorded history of the Picts in AD 300, through the kings of Dal Riada and Strathclyde, the Viking invasion and settlements, the real history of Macbeth, Sir William Wallace, Robert Bruce, the Black Douglas and Douglas Clan, Mary Queen of Scots, James Stuart, Charles I and Charles II, the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell, and the ending of the Stuart lineage on the throne.
The Kings and Queens of Scotland, is a fascinating study of Scotland's history with emphasis on its royal families.
I love Scottish history. The desire stems from an interest in British history, but also because I am Scottish in ancestry. I'm related to Clan Duncan and Clan Ross lineage. At some point, maybe in 2014, I'll do DNA testing.
Even though The Kings and Queens of Scotland moves along at a fast pace I kept up. The amount of historical research throughout the centuries that the author covered is impressive. Most authors I've found focus on a particular time period, for example the Tudor period, or a more vast-the Middle Ages; Venning covers centuries of Scottish history.
The Kings and Queens of Scotland, is a brief but solid study. I feel knowledgeable about Scotland's ancient history.
The few pages on Macbeth is one of the highlights of the book, as well as information on the Picts, kings of Dal Riada, and the Black Douglas. In most of the Scottish history books I've read the main characters have been Mary Queen of Scots or her son James. Until now I'd not read of Scottish kings from the Dark Ages.
If you are looking for a book that gives a well-rounded study of Scottish history, I believe this is an excellent choice.