The Blood in Winter: A Nation Descends, 1642

by Jonathan Healey

Bloomsbury presents The Blood in Winter by Jonathan Healey, read by Mark Meadows.

A nation on the cusp of war. A King ousted from his capital by the people. A society on the brink of collapse. From Jonathan Healey comes a thrilling history about the months that sent England into civil war.

'Healey has done it again. The Blood in Winter is history as it should be told, where new light is cast upon one of the most dramatic years in British history. Shaped by meticulous research and a narrative worthy of any political thriller, the result is masterful' ALICE LOXTON

After years of tension between a king and his people, in 1641 England reaches a semblance of peace. Armies have disbanded, legislation has passed to ensure Parliament will continue to sit, and the people are tentatively optimistic. Radical politicians congratulate themselves on a stunning political victory. Royal servants are coming to accept an altered future.

Then comes winter. With it, chaos, protests, political deadlock, and eventually a remarkable attempt by King Charles I to destroy his opponents. On 4 January 1642 Charles marches on the small riverside city of Westminster at the head of an army, seeking to arrest five Members of Parliament. In doing so, he sets in motion a series of events that will lead to bloodshed and war, changing a nation forever.

Why did the English Civil War break out? The Blood in Winter tells the story of an English people's great political awakening, and of a nation that splintered into bloodshed at a terrifying speed. Jonathan Healey recreates the claustrophobic atmosphere of the day, with rowdy protestors in the streets and London blanketed in coal smoke. It is a story of remarkable but flawed characters, all faced with unpalatable choices, and a frightening picture of a society in profound distress.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, English Civil War, Historical, Civil War, British Literature, War

Audible Audio

First published June 26, 2025

Reviews

[None Ofyourbusiness Loves Israel · Rating 4 out of 5]

England in 1641 resembles a sick ward, plague lingering in the air as Parliament shakes itself awake to demand Strafford's head for his Irish tyranny. He had juggled Presbyterians, Gaels, and papists like a carnival fraudster until the pins set fire to his hands.

By autumn, tales of Irish massacres swell into lurid rumors, and Pym's zealots serve up the Grand Remonstrance, a Puritan sermon masquerading as a grievance list, indicting Charles for crimes ranging from ship money to altar rails.

As coal smoke chokes London's alleys and radical preachers hawk democratic sermons from soapboxes, the king, eyeing absolute sway, plots a midnight coup that fizzles in November's frost, only to escalate when Irish revolts erupt in bloody earnest, painting the realm in sectarian strokes.

Charles, sulking in Whitehall, plots ham-fisted coups while Irish rebels carve their grievances in blood. His answer to national crisis: a Privy Council debate over eel taxes. When he marches into the Commons with halberdiers and a royal temper, demanding five MPs on treason charges, he finds their benches emptier than his purse. Speaker Lenthall's carefully servile thunderclap makes the king look like a schoolmaster whose pupils slipped out the back door.

London boils over. Apprentices riot, preachers scream sovereignty from the soapbox, and Queen Henrietta Maria hawks jewels for mercenaries. Charles flees north to York, polishing muskets like heirlooms while Parliament locks down the Tower and county militias. At Hull, Sir John Hotham slams the gates on his king, and Charles mutters the immortal phrase, “Actual war is levied upon us,” as if he had only just noticed.

The cast thickens: Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, groans at Pym's excess yet despairs of Charles's blunders, caught between loyalty and reason until both collapse around him. Oliver Cromwell, meanwhile, rides in from the fenlands, hawk-eyed, a backbencher nobody expected to matter, already drilling God's will into raw recruits and testing his voice in Parliament like a trumpet warming up for battle.

By summer, Parliament's Nineteen Propositions land like a brick through stained glass, demanding the right to name ministers and command armies. Charles, ever gallant in his self-delusion, plants his standard at Nottingham, rain drenching his levies as if Heaven itself mocked him.

Pamphlets scream, bishops are branded beasts, and John Taylor the Water Poet ferries insults across the Thames. The realm tips from quarrel to combat, every sermon and sluice of print another musket primed. Governance shrinks to bear-baiting, with the bear now wearing a crown.

Readers will find 1642's brink a banquet of contingencies, Healey's history devouring hindsight to serve the raw thrill of what-ifs weaponized into was, proving that crowns crack when gripped by gloved hands too greedy for the grip.

This well written chronicle captures the jittery dance toward catastrophe: Strafford's fall, Lenthall's bow, Hotham's drawbridge, Falkland's despair, Cromwell's rise. Picture parliaments as parliaments do best: devouring kings whole, one slippery step from eel to execution, leaving posterity to ponder if civil wars begin with winter's whine or Westminster's wit. The jest writes itself: kings who haggle over fish end up gutted.

Watch out England. History has a tendency to repeat itself. Look carefully at the terrorists on your streets and the massacres in your synagogues and Taylor Swift fans' ballet dance clubs.

[History Today]

Nobody expects civil war. Looking back, as Jonathan Healey does in this exciting account of the events that broke this nation 383 years ago, it is easy to see what is coming. Plots and counterplots, small conspiracies and big rumours, bad actors and impractical idealists crowd the stage of history and, from 2025, it all points in one direction. But it is unlikely that anybody got up on any morning in the first half of 1642 and said to themselves: that’s it, we are at war.

After all, Charles I had attempted the personal rule – the rule of the king without Parliament – from March 1629, and it seemed to be going well. To be sure, not everybody was happy about the new taxes, but when did taxes ever make people happy? True, not everybody was happy, either, with the new initiatives to restore the beauty of holiness – for many, altarcloths and statues were not beautiful, but suspicious signs of Catholic allegiance – but they were almost certain to get used to the idea. A few court masques would reassure any dissident nobles, and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, was at hand to resolve any local difficulties with the Scots and Irish. In Ireland, Strafford’s rule was a mix of iron fist and conciliation; he had to maintain relations between the many different interest groups – Presbyterian Scottish settlers, the old Irish gentry, and the Gaelic-speaking common people – while also repressing any direct rebellious energy. Charles never really liked him. Nobody else liked him very much either, particularly after he had forced the Protestants in Ulster to renounce the Scottish Covenant, an oath taken to reject Charles’ ecclesiastical reforms. Cornered and increasingly sick, he made a series of disastrous mistakes – stealing the title of baron of Raby from another key member of the Privy Council, Sir Henry Vane, and raising an Irish army that contained Catholics to repress the Scots – and so ‘Black Tom Tyrant’, as the press called him, became that standard target of rebellious energy, the king’s bad counsellor.

If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, that vigilance started in England with a certain strand of English Protestantism, which had been on red alert since Strafford’s elevation, and probably on amber alert throughout the 1630s. Protestantism defined itself above all as the power to repel Catholic repression, and that definition, strengthened by the London press, animated all those concerned about the legitimacy of Charles’ actions, a group that eventually formed something like a nascent political party known to historians as the Junto.

Read the rest of the review at https://www.historytoday.com/archive/...

Diane Purkiss

[Olivia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a visceral account of a nation collapsing into social and political unrest. The description of life during this period was unbelievably vivid - I was particularly struck by the sense of fevered marauding at Christmas.
I learnt a huge amount too, despite being someone already very interested in the English Civil War, and really appreciated the dual focus on politics/royalty and the everyday person. This is a fastidiously researched book and I would recommend it to anyone interested in understanding how society can implode.

[Danna]

Daunt Books' recommendation:
Why did the English Civil War break out? The Blood in Winter tells the story of a great political awakening and of a nation that splintered into bloodshed at terrifying speed. Jonathan Healey recreates the claustrophobic atmosphere of the day, with rowdy protesters in the streets and London blanketed in coal smoke. It is a story of remarkable but flawed characters, all faced with unpalatable choices, and a frightening picture of a society in profound distress. Healey's superb book gives us this moment-by-moment descent into chaos and warfare as a taut thriller.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

My thanks to NetGalley and Knopf, Pantheon, Vintage, and Anchor for an advance copy of this history that looks at the events leading up to the English Civil War, one that brought down a monarchy, changed history and planted seeds of revolt and the end of kings, that still last until this day.

There is a lot of discourse in America that we as a nation are headed for Civil War. Most of this is from people who think that like the Confederacy of old, that war is kind of a lark, or a LARP to many. The good people will shoot some of the people bringing America down, things will go great, and they will be home in time to stream the Dallas Cowboys and eat Hot Pockets. Questions like where will things stream from, how will Hot Pockets get to your home, that might be on the frontlines of a battle. What government will be formed? How and when will things go back to what could be considered adequate, if not normal? These questions never come up. Actions usually start without a solid basis of thought. One side says now, and all others follow, without plan, without form. This book which details the months before the English Civil War, show this. Little things added up to actions that once started took on a life of their own, and ended a monarchy. And planted the seeds for rebellion in the future. The Blood in Winter: England on the Brink of Civil War, 1642 by Jonathan Healey is a history written almost as a modern thriller about men and women caught up in events that seemed to slalom out of control, until only one path, that of civil war, seemed to be a solution.

The book begins with a England at peace with border differences with Scotland being settled, armies disbanded and a Parliment actually in session. The memories of the plague were fading, and while there were many different ideas about politics and religion, things seemed to be calm. Which was not what the King Charles I wanted. Charles wanted revenge for many slights, and he also wanted more power than he was able to wield at the time. Charles believed in the diving right of kings, and not having to listen to others as he ruled as he wanted. And also taxed as he wanted, which is never popular with the people. Added to this was the usual religious strife, a fear of Catholicism that was causing distress among the Scots, and among his own people. The idea of different forms of government were also being discussed, as were questions about how should rule, and how. Cabals were being formed, alliances made and broken depending on the day. Plots were manufactured, or were real. Until finally events started to shift out of control, ad soon the country was at war with itself.

A fascinating book, one that does mirror the current political landscape, except that out politicians seem to want to have a king, and not limit their power. The book really does read like a thriller, introducing its large cast and following them through private conversations, plots, plans, trials, executions and more. Healey is very good writer, able to keep the narrative moving, explaining again the large cast, and not getting lost in little things, but keeping the reader informed and interested. I knew a little about the English Civil War, but I found out so much more that I never knew, or didn't really understand. Healey made everything clear, and even as I knew what was going to happen, had me at the edge of my seat wondering what the result was going to be.

A very good work of history, and even better an exciting read about a time that seems very close to our own, with people who talked a good game, but seemed as surprised as anyone else that things escalated as they did. An excellent gift for those who like history, or just love good books in general.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of those books that would likely take you several read-throughs in order to absorb all of the information. Healey did an excellent job of diving into the source material and bringing to life in vivid color the year 1642. Healey expands the examination of this fateful year in history beyond simply looking at the King and Parliament and interweaves the lives and experiences of both the noble families and common folk alike. I particularly enjoyed the information about Queen Henrietta Maria and Lucy Hay, Countess of Carlisle. Each of these women played an important role in the transfer of information during this period and was in close contact with many of the key political players.

I do wish that this book had followed a single person through the course of the events. In some ways, it does highlight important people throughout the course of the story, but the shifting in perspectives did make it a bit hard to follow as someone very new to the topic. Matters are not helped by the fact that there is a lot of overlap in names during this period.

Regardless, Healey was clearly able to outline the tensions that began to arise between Charles I and the House of Commons in the early portion of the year, which, as events began to unfold, brought the House of Lords into the fight before engulfing Charel's realms. The importance of Ireland in the tensions that arose was interesting to learn about, and the way that Healey also highlighted how tensions in Scotland were arising at the same time painted a holistic picture of the complaints about Charles' rule.

Although Healey doesn't delve into a character analysis of Charles, he does highlight several areas where he held strengths as a King as well as weaknesses. This allowed me as a reader to come to my own conclusions about the kind of ruler that Charles was and how this contributed to the events that unfolded.

If you are interested in the political dynamics that led to the outbreak of the English Civil Wars, I would recommend this book. However, if you are new to the topic, I might start with a different text to familiarize yourself with the topic before picking this book up. With some background information, it brings to life the uncertainty and tension of the times.

I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.

CONTENT WARNINGS
Graphic: Violence, Forced institutionalization, Religious bigotry, Toxic friendship, Classism
Moderate: Death, Infidelity
Minor: Child death, Pregnancy, War, Injury/Injury detail

[Michael Reilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I hate that I cannot get away from the that guy.

This is a fascinating book about England in 1642. King Charles 1 battles with the Parliament for control of England. The political crisis in this year was the opening rounds of what became the English Civil War.

On page 2 of the introduction, Healey says that this is a book about "how a functioning and sophisticated state, well-grounded in law, constitutionally mature and with an educated political class, found itself descending into bloodshed." He explains how a King obsessed with his power was blinded to any restraint. He also shows that to carry out his plans, "what Charles needed.... was not a thinker, a questioning man or anyone with a hint of the timid or the hesitant. What he needed was a loyal thug.".

To repeat, this is about 1642 England.

The Puritans and their allies controlled the Parliament by a slim margin. They did not control the House of Lords. The two big issues of the day were religion and limits on royal power. The Puritans were terrified that the King and his Catholic wife wanted to reinstate Catholicism, which they believed was controlled by the Antichrist. They also believed that the King should not control the calling and disbanding of Parliments and that the Church of England Bishops should not be in the House of Lords.

Charles 1 was stubborn and wholly unsuited to be a popular leader. He eventually became so frustrated with the Parliament that he ordered the arrest of the five leading members of Parlaiment. The news leaked and they avoided arrest. Within months, England was in Civil War between the King's Army and the Parliament's Army. In proportional terms, more Englishman died in their Civil War than in WW1.

Healey tells the story of the final clashes which lead to the war. He shows many of the King's aides and advisors trying to avoid a clash and being ignored by the King. He shows the hardcore Puritans trying to keep control and not cave into the King. This is political drama with the highest stakes.

This is a road map to how a healthy operating society can be ruined by a power mad, arrogant, ignorant and insecure leader.

[Carlton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is gripping narrative history, well written and successfully focused on the winter of 1641/42, when Charles I, king of Britain (England, Scotland and Ireland) lost political control of the country. After a brief description of events prior to the winter, Healey provides a detailed account and explanation of matters from the viewpoint of both the Royal family and the “Junto” in Parliament’s House of Commons, slowing the narrative down to describe nearly each day’s events in December/January, but ratcheting up the tension, even though the outcome is known.
Very readable and highly recommended history.

You’ve just got to love a historian who can preface his book with a cast of characters (with their ages when the book starts in May 1641) and write as the last mentioned character from the House of Commons: Oliver Cromwell (42): obscure !
I have already read Healey’s The Blazing World, which describes the details the longer history of the Stuart’s and Interregnum in seventeenth century England, which was one of my favourite books of 2022. This more detailed history of a much shorter period, engagingly looks at a turning point in English history, the political moves that precipitated the start of the English Civil War.

Scotland and Ireland are both mentioned in this book, but the focus is very much on London and Westminster (still separate if adjacent cities), and England, as this is primarily political history. Healey humanises the political by following various characters, most notably John Bankes.
The book has sixteen pages of colour prints, which are usefully referenced in the text to enhance the story and in particular illustrate the printed political-ish pamphlets that were beginning to be circulated for the first time in England (a forerunner of newspapers). There are also a couple of useful maps at the beginning.

[Billy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book about a different era of history for me. And it showed. For me, who can handle War and Peace with ease, there were too many characters, many of whom had real names and then also were identified by the British practice of using their title.
Actually this book is really not for those unfamiliar with British history in general and British Civil War history in particular. I was just not comfortable with the way Parliament or Lords or Kingship worked back in those days; all those titles within the royal administration struck me as over the top and silly; a map of London and the City would have helped (showing the Tower, Westminster, Whitehall, and other sites); a map of England would also have helped to locate all those "shires" and towns and other places where the characters were going.
The way the story was told bothered me a bit too- the first paragraph of a page would say something like "the king felt his power base growing, and that of Parliament ebbing". Then the next paragraph would say "Charles was losing his grip on power as Parliament did" something. Back and forth, back and forth for 300 pages.
I'll admit my ignorance - I had thought that Charles was a Catholic and wanted to take back England for Catholicism. His wife was the culprit on that charge. All Charles wanted, other than more power, was to retain a place in Lords for bishops, and then to punish those who opposed him.
Lastly, I wonder about the timing of this book and whether it really is directed at American readers since we are in the midst of our own constitutional crisis. I think this vehicle is too distant in time and too different in culture to ring much of a bell here.

[David McGrogan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is certainly entertaining and informative, but in the end poorly conceived and executed. The writing is almost at a 'For Dummies' level, and I found myself becoming increasingly irritated in particular by this weird tic Healey has for beating the reader over the head with a point he has just made on the assumption said reader is too dense to keep up. These are not examples from the text, but illustrate the pattern: 'Riots had broken out and people were arming themselves with weapons. London was getting dangerous.' 'Lady Forsyth had gone to stay with her sister in a quiet rural village and was not speaking to anybody. She was keeping her head down.' 'Apples and oranges are both types of fruit but of different varieties. They are different types of fruit.'

The structure is also peculiar. The person we are all really interested in is King Charles, and by extension those influencing him. Coming second are the members of the Junto. Yet the book takes as its main protagonists other figures - John Bankes, Lucy Carlisle - and dwells for an inordinate amount of time on their biographies. This is never really justified in the text.

Finally, very little attempt is made to set events in context. The Epilogue makes some very vague, almost content-less efforts to explain why the Civil War happened. But ultimately the reader is not really left with a clear idea about why the events depicted in the book were happening in the first place.

In short, I like the idea of this book. But it is half-baked.

[ANTHONY CUTLER · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember, as though it were yesterday, though it was in fact over half a century ago, writing the heading in my history exercise book at school Divine right of kings versus Parliament. Below there must have been some rehearsal of the points of conflict: budgets, control of the armed forces, religion, appointment of the King's ministers ... , all leading up to the failed attempt by King Charles to arrest five Members of Parliament.

I'm pretty sure that was immediately followed by a fresh heading, Battle of Edge Hill. What seemed opaque to me was how we got from the political tensions to an actual shooting war. Well, it's all set out here in Healey's wonderful book. He gives us, almost on a day-by-day basis, the political developments of the winter of 1641/ 1642 leading to civil war. It's an exciting story as you may know from the 1970 film Cromwell where Richard Harris got to brood a lot and Timothy Dalton, latterly James Bond, played Prince Rupert of the Rhein.

But this is not, yet, Cromwell's story. Healey gives a lively and fast paced account of the personalities, the intrigues and the botched plots along the way, the parliamentary factions and the rioting Londoners besetting Westminster Hall. I particularly noted Parliament's resolution to deliver a Remonstrance to the King setting out their grievances. A Parliamentary bill sought that the Remonstrance be "printed and published". The Royalist party succeeded in an amendment deleting "printed". Armies of scribes worked indefatigably copying the Remonstrance by hand for distribution to the population at large.

My interest did slack a little towards the end of the first half of the book, but once we got to the bishops being barred from the House of Lords by the London mob, it was all fast paced to the end. I do like my history detailed and this was it.

[Luke Delaney · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Blood in Winter is an excellent, exciting narrative history of the months leading up to the English Civil War. Healey grounds the story by focusing on a medium-sized cast of characters, ranging from household names like Charles I to relatively obscure figures like John Bankes, the King's attorney general. Healey's evocative character introductions helped me understand these people's personalities and made even the obscure characters stick in my mind. These people's speeches, shifting allegiances, and (occasionally clever, often ill-fated) schemes constitute the core drama of this book. Even though I was already familiar with the history of the English Civil War, Healey's narrative and character-centered approach made it all seem new and exciting again; I agree with some other reviewers who have said this book has the feel of a TV drama.

Another important factor in creating this sense of excitement is the book's exceptional pacing. Healey's narrative weaves in many engaging and immersive details without losing any momentum. Political developments come in rapid succession, evoking how confusing and overwhelming 1642 must have been for English and Scottish people who lived through it.

King Charles I and his critics in Parliament (the so-called "Junto") must always one-up one another, each party fearing that if it gives an inch, the other will take a mile. Each escalation, taken on its own, might seem rational and strategically sound, but cumulatively, they drive England over the brink to a point where compromise between the King and the Junto becomes unworkable. In a shockingly short span of time, this game of political brinksmanship between the King and the Junto transforms England from a nation in which civil war seems impossible to one in which it is inevitable.

Overall, this is one of the best books I have read recently, and I thoroughly recommend it. I consider it the gold standard for accessible narrative history.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although the subtitle mentions 1642, this is actually a book mostly about 1641 (and no, the shift of New Year's Day from March 1 to January 1 has nothing to do with that; if you include those first two months in 1641, the weirdness is even more pronounced). Healey is very well studied in the years surrounding the English Civil War (this is the second of his I've read). He's still not an excellent writer; he has trouble tying events together and relatedly has issues with reminding readers of various events and characters, and their importance.

That's not to say that I didn't enjoy the book, because I did in fact. Very important issues regarding the sovereign vs. the people were being worked out in real time in this era--and they still are today! (At least regarding the "power of the people," which is also something upon which to reflect as America celebrates 250 years of independence.)

Charles I had his strengths, but making a play for greater sovereignty turned out to be a mistake. Even after the Restoration, things would never return to the "way things were." That is undoubtedly for the better (despite the pitifully desperate and sorry state of current UK politics).

One character I knew little about prior to this book was Queen Henrietta Maria. Charles was unwise to marry a French catholic, yet I came away impressed by Henrietta. And don't forget she has a US state named after her!

[Julie Witt · Rating 5 out of 5]

My first thought when I finished this book was, wow! That was an awful lot of stuff to happen in just five months, but it was explained in a way that made it easy to read, other than having a lot of people involved to try to keep straight. People were in with the King one minute, then out, then back in again, over and over and over. It was crazy how things transpired during those months that led up to the English Civil War when you think about it. Just changing one decision could have altered history, which blows my mind. I don't know if you do this, but I keep wanting people to make different choices, even though I'm not delusional and I know that this being nonfiction, that's not going to happen. Lol

This book was well written, which made following the action and understanding the sequence of events easier than it would have been with a lesser writer. As a history buff, this was the perfect book for me, and if you love history, too, I happily recommend it.

5/5 stars

*** Thank you NetGalley, Knopf, Pantheon, Vintage and Anchor, and Jonathan Healey for the opportunity to read and review The Blood in Winter.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Blood in Winter: England on the Brink of Civil War, 1642 by Jonathan Healey is a great book that comes out today, 9/16/25.

This book really helps try to explain all of the different factors that cane together to bring England to that volatile and unique period that was the civil war. This focuses on those last few months as everything was unraveling between Parliament, the monarchy, and the general public.

The author is well-informed, clearly knows his stuff, and presented it all in a way that us English history fanatics located in the States can really grasp, retain, understand, and ultimately enjoy in the process.

I recommend this for anyone that is fascinated with 17th century England its history.!

4/5 stars

Thank you NG and Knopf, Pantheon, Vintage, and Anchor | Knopf for this wonderful arc and in return I am submitting my unbiased and voluntary review and opinion.

I am posting this review to my GR and Bookbub accounts immediately and will post it to my Amazon, Instagram, and B&N accounts upon publication on 9/16/25.

[Ilya · Rating 5 out of 5]

So, so good. I thought Healey’s “The Blazing World” was marvelous, and this book, while narrower in scope, is its worthy successor. In fine, clear prose, it describes the build-up to the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642. It is one of those projects that often creak under the weight of detail—a risk that should be still higher here because Healey picks a relatively short period of time for book-length treatment. No fear: the books reads like a cross between a taut, masterful novel and a thrilling political tick-tock. It may not be the very first thing to read about the Civil War—something more panoramic (indeed, “The Blazing World”) may be a better place to start, but for anyone genuinely interested in the subject, “Blood in Winter” is a must-read.

— thanks to Knopf for an ARC via NetGalley

[Kip Poindexter · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book on the heels of The Rage of the Party by George Owers, which covered the Wigs and Tories era in the late 17th and early 18th century. I wanted to dig in deeper into the run-up to that time period, so I decided to start here to set the stage before moving on to the Civil War itself. I really enjoyed spending a whole book covering a shorter time period, about a year, and while I knew all of what animates our times conflicts are nothing new, it was fun to learn where so much of it was played out beforehand, and what so much of our beliefs and practices come from. This was another Law & Liberty recommendation sitting on my “want to read” shelf. The next one on Oliver Cromwell and the Civil War will be a challenge, as I’m sure there are plenty to pick from, but I don't have a specific recommendation from a source I am familiar with and trust.

[George Crofts · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. It reads like a detective novel. The author, Jonathan Healley, focuses on a brief five month period between 1641 and 1642 leading up to the English civil war. It’s a good counterpoint to his other book “the blazing world, a new history of revolutionary England, 1603 through 1689”. In this case he focuses in minute detail on the individuals on either side of this test of absolute monarchy.

Charles I comes across as indecisive and vacillating. While his wife, Queen Henrietta Maria, keeps urging him on to drastic action.

His worst mistake was coming in person to seize the five members of parliament who he believed to be the ringleaders, setting off the English civil war.

[Dennis Hogan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finished The Blood in Winter: England on the Brink of Civil War, 1642 by Jonathan Healey written in 2025. Healry is an historian who specializes in sixteenth and seventeenth English history. He is Associate Professor in Social History at the University of Oxford. This book describes the five month period leading up to the English Civil War in 1642 which led to the dictatorial rule of Oliver Cromwell. This book has personal appeal as it explains why my 9th great-grandfather left the turbulence England for Massachusetts in 1642.

[Jonathan Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

what can i say? this book had me hooked before the first chapter was finished, i absolutely loved this, great writing, full of details and moreso it was a solid story.

i could not put it down and read quicker than my normal speed. i have always had a love of history and prefer 17th century and everything in that from revolution, Civil war, the Stuarts and royal history, this had all but the revolution.

a great Author and one i will follow, i'm now worried that my next book won't come up to scratch.

[Jean · Rating 5 out of 5]

An engaging analysis of the issues of governance, power, policy, etc. during the English Civil War, as Royalist and Junto factions jostled for the right to define the powers of Parliamentary rule and to control the use of those powers. The modern British state has its roots in the struggle that consumed the country from 1642 to the restoration of Stuart rule.

Finished reading Dec. 1, although not sure that this wonky website is going to save that date.

Probably too busy figuring out how to annoy me about comments.

[Alvin Dulcan · Rating 3 out of 5]

It wasn't bad. It gave insight into the workings of the British Monarch and parliament. There are some reflections in today's US politics. But it was a short period of history. It didn't even get to the time when Oliver Cromwell was ruling. I suppose that, at some point, I have to read about Cromwell.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

A detailed and fascinating insight into the year leading up to civil war in 1642. This book works best when highlighting the role of a range of people. However I really struggled with some of the detailed wranglings in Parliament and found myself dipping in and out of the book over a long period.

[Stuart Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

A scholarly but very readable account of the political maneuverings of Parliamentarians (aka "Round-heads") and Royalists (aka "Cavaliers") in the tense buildup to the English Civil War. Anyone interested in English history (especially the first half of the 17th century) will want to read this.

[Keith Mantell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic history

I greatly enjoyed The Blazing World, but often wished for more detail. In this book we get details but in a very accessible form. A truly fascinating episode of history told brilliantly. I hope there will be more books about this period.

[Farah Mendlesohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another cracking book from Healey. This one goes almost hour by hour.

I met some people I didn't know; learned nuances; and was delighted by the very serious take on Lucy Hay.

[bup · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-covered. It's frustrating to read about the buildup to a Civil War, though, and then the book ends. So many unfinished story lines!