What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of England #3
Rebellion: The History of England from James I to the Glorious Revolution
Peter Ackroyd has been praised as one of the greatest living chroniclers of Britain and its people. In Rebellion, he continues his dazzling account of the history of England, beginning with the progress south of the Scottish king, James VI, who on the death of Elizabeth I became the first Stuart king of England, and ending with the deposition and flight into exile of his grandson, James II.The Stuart monarchy brought together the two nations of England and Scotland into one realm, albeit a realm still marked by political divisions that echo to this day. More importantly, perhaps, the Stuart era was marked by the cruel depredations of civil war, and the killing of a king. Shrewd and opinionated, James I was eloquent on matters as diverse as theology, witchcraft, and the abuses of tobacco, but his attitude to the English parliament sowed the seeds of the division that would split the country during the reign of his hapless heir, Charles I. Ackroyd offers a brilliant, warts-and-all portrayal of Charles's nemesis, Oliver Cromwell, Parliament's great military leader and England's only dictator, who began his career as a political liberator but ended it as much of a despot as "that man of blood," the king he executed.England's turbulent seventeenth century is vividly laid out before us, but so too is the cultural and social life of the period, notable for its extraordinarily rich literature, including Shakespeare's late masterpieces, Jacobean tragedy, the poetry of John Donne and Milton and Thomas Hobbes's great philosophical treatise, Leviathan. In addition to its account of England's royalty, Rebellion also gives us a very real sense of the lives of ordinary English men and women, lived out against a backdrop of constant disruption and uncertainty.
530 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 25, 2014
531 people are currently reading
3925 people want to read
About the author
Peter Ackroyd
185 books1,500 followersPeter Ackroyd CBE is an English novelist and biographer with a particular interest in the history and culture of London.
Peter Ackroyd's mother worked in the personnel department of an engineering firm, his father having left the family home when Ackroyd was a baby. He was reading newspapers by the age of 5 and, at 9, wrote a play about Guy Fawkes. Reputedly, he first realized he was gay at the age of 7.
Ackroyd was educated at St. Benedict's, Ealing and at Clare College, Cambridge, from which he graduated with a double first in English. In 1972, he was a Mellon Fellow at Yale University in the United States. The result of this fellowship was Ackroyd's Notes for a New Culture, written when he was only 22 and eventually published in 1976. The title, a playful echo of T. S. Eliot's Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948), was an early indication of Ackroyd's penchant for creatively exploring and reexamining the works of other London-based writers.
Ackroyd's literary career began with poetry, including such works as London Lickpenny (1973) and The Diversions of Purley (1987). He later moved into fiction and has become an acclaimed author, winning the 1998 James Tait Black Memorial Prize for the biography Thomas More and being shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1987.
Ackroyd worked at The Spectator magazine between 1973 and 1977 and became joint managing editor in 1978. In 1982 he published The Great Fire of London, his first novel. This novel deals with one of Ackroyd's great heroes, Charles Dickens, and is a reworking of Little Dorrit. The novel set the stage for the long sequence of novels Ackroyd has produced since, all of which deal in some way with the complex interaction of time and space, and what Ackroyd calls "the spirit of place". It is also the first in a sequence of novels of London, through which he traces the changing, but curiously consistent nature of the city. Often this theme is explored through the city's artists, and especially its writers.
Ackroyd has always shown a great interest in the city of London, and one of his best known works, London: The Biography, is an extensive and thorough discussion of London through the ages.
His fascination with London literary and artistic figures is also displayed in the sequence of biographies he has produced of Ezra Pound (1980), T. S. Eliot (1984), Charles Dickens (1990), William Blake (1995), Thomas More (1998), Chaucer (2004), William Shakespeare (2005), and J. M. W. Turner. The city itself stands astride all these works, as it does in the fiction.
From 2003 to 2005, Ackroyd wrote a six-book non-fiction series (Voyages Through Time), intended for readers as young as eight. This was his first work for children. The critically acclaimed series is an extensive narrative of key periods in world history.
Early in his career, Ackroyd was nominated a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1984 and, as well as producing fiction, biography and other literary works, is also a regular radio and television broadcaster and book critic.
In the New Year's honours list of 2003, Ackroyd was awarded the CBE.
Peter Ackroyd's mother worked in the personnel department of an engineering firm, his father having left the family home when Ackroyd was a baby. He was reading newspapers by the age of 5 and, at 9, wrote a play about Guy Fawkes. Reputedly, he first realized he was gay at the age of 7.
Ackroyd was educated at St. Benedict's, Ealing and at Clare College, Cambridge, from which he graduated with a double first in English. In 1972, he was a Mellon Fellow at Yale University in the United States. The result of this fellowship was Ackroyd's Notes for a New Culture, written when he was only 22 and eventually published in 1976. The title, a playful echo of T. S. Eliot's Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948), was an early indication of Ackroyd's penchant for creatively exploring and reexamining the works of other London-based writers.
Ackroyd's literary career began with poetry, including such works as London Lickpenny (1973) and The Diversions of Purley (1987). He later moved into fiction and has become an acclaimed author, winning the 1998 James Tait Black Memorial Prize for the biography Thomas More and being shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1987.
Ackroyd worked at The Spectator magazine between 1973 and 1977 and became joint managing editor in 1978. In 1982 he published The Great Fire of London, his first novel. This novel deals with one of Ackroyd's great heroes, Charles Dickens, and is a reworking of Little Dorrit. The novel set the stage for the long sequence of novels Ackroyd has produced since, all of which deal in some way with the complex interaction of time and space, and what Ackroyd calls "the spirit of place". It is also the first in a sequence of novels of London, through which he traces the changing, but curiously consistent nature of the city. Often this theme is explored through the city's artists, and especially its writers.
Ackroyd has always shown a great interest in the city of London, and one of his best known works, London: The Biography, is an extensive and thorough discussion of London through the ages.
His fascination with London literary and artistic figures is also displayed in the sequence of biographies he has produced of Ezra Pound (1980), T. S. Eliot (1984), Charles Dickens (1990), William Blake (1995), Thomas More (1998), Chaucer (2004), William Shakespeare (2005), and J. M. W. Turner. The city itself stands astride all these works, as it does in the fiction.
From 2003 to 2005, Ackroyd wrote a six-book non-fiction series (Voyages Through Time), intended for readers as young as eight. This was his first work for children. The critically acclaimed series is an extensive narrative of key periods in world history.
Early in his career, Ackroyd was nominated a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1984 and, as well as producing fiction, biography and other literary works, is also a regular radio and television broadcaster and book critic.
In the New Year's honours list of 2003, Ackroyd was awarded the CBE.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 269 reviews
December 30, 2025
(B+) 77% | Good
Notes: Women have scant presence in this volume, and aside from religious allegiance, are given little purpose in the story.
Notes: Women have scant presence in this volume, and aside from religious allegiance, are given little purpose in the story.
October 19, 2014
If you are bored of the Tudors, then the Stuarts are what you have been waiting for. With their gay lovers, horrible murders, extravagant queens, and glorious revolutions, the dynasty offers enough scandals and drama to put their predecessors in the shade.
This third volume of Peter Ackroyd’s History of England covers a great deal more than the ‘Civil War’ of the title. In fact, it opens a full thirty-nine years earlier with the accession of the first Stuart king of England, James I, in 1603. After a lifetime of ruling violent and poverty stricken Scotland, the king sees England as a land of milk and honey - or rather, of riches and beautiful young men. He is soon enjoying both, and Ackroyd has almost as much fun describing James’s scandal ridden court.
Here men ‘wallow in beastly delights’, women ‘abandon their sobriety and roll about in intoxication’, while James spends money like water. But James also has ambitions. He commissions the King James translation of the bible and yearns to be a bringer of peace and religious unity. He succeeds at the former, making a truce with Spain that ends the fifteen years of war. But he fails to unite his three kingdoms – England, Scotland and Ireland –into a single British state. Nor is he able to impose a single form of Protestantism on his wayward subjects.
By the time James’s son becomes King Charles I, the peace with Spain is breaking down. Charles faces MPs who don’t trust a Stuart king with taxpayers money and won’t vote him the subsidies he needs to prosecute the coming war. It is also soon evident that Charles not only shares his father’s belief in the divine right of kings to rule, he is less willing to back down in his confrontations with parliament. One result is the murder of a hated councillor the Duke of Buckingham – who he had refused to sack.
For eleven years after Buckingham’s murder, and following a brief parliament, Charles rules alone, raising taxes by royal right alone. That is enough to make him bitterly unpopular. But it is his single-minded efforts to fulfil his father’s ambitions to create one British Protestant church that drives his kingdoms to rebellion. Two wars with Scotland are succeeded by revolt in Ireland. A year later, in 1642, the English turn on each other and the age of the roundhead and the cavalier is born.
According to Ackroyd more people died in the English civil war, as a percentage of population, than England lost in World War I. And the bloodshed didn’t end after Charles I was tried, condemned for treason against his own people, and beheaded. The subsequent dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell proved to be no great improvement on Charles’s ‘tyranny’ and after Cromwell died, the king’s eldest son was invited back as Charles II.
Ackroyd covers the reigns of the merry Charles II and his dourer brother James II, in short order, concluding in 1688, with James’s expulsion from England. Rejected as a Catholic James II spent the rest of his life in France, where his mother, Henrietta Maria, had spent so many desperate years during the civil war and its aftermath. It is romantic and tragic story, and Ackroyd packs it with colourful quotations and anecdotes. But despite having a chapter on ‘the women of war’ there is an absence of strong female portraits. Henrietta Maria is barely more than a shadow.
Ackroyd is also weak on analysis and makes some silly mistakes. Charles I was not crowned in a white cloak. Brilliana Harley, was a famous parliamentarian heroine, not a ‘royalist letter-writer’. It makes you wonder what else he has wrong and without references it is hard check his facts. Nevertheless, as you follow the remarkable successes and disastrous failings of the Stuart dynasty in England, you cannot but enjoy the exuberance of the ride.
An edited version of this review was published in the Mail on Sunday
This third volume of Peter Ackroyd’s History of England covers a great deal more than the ‘Civil War’ of the title. In fact, it opens a full thirty-nine years earlier with the accession of the first Stuart king of England, James I, in 1603. After a lifetime of ruling violent and poverty stricken Scotland, the king sees England as a land of milk and honey - or rather, of riches and beautiful young men. He is soon enjoying both, and Ackroyd has almost as much fun describing James’s scandal ridden court.
Here men ‘wallow in beastly delights’, women ‘abandon their sobriety and roll about in intoxication’, while James spends money like water. But James also has ambitions. He commissions the King James translation of the bible and yearns to be a bringer of peace and religious unity. He succeeds at the former, making a truce with Spain that ends the fifteen years of war. But he fails to unite his three kingdoms – England, Scotland and Ireland –into a single British state. Nor is he able to impose a single form of Protestantism on his wayward subjects.
By the time James’s son becomes King Charles I, the peace with Spain is breaking down. Charles faces MPs who don’t trust a Stuart king with taxpayers money and won’t vote him the subsidies he needs to prosecute the coming war. It is also soon evident that Charles not only shares his father’s belief in the divine right of kings to rule, he is less willing to back down in his confrontations with parliament. One result is the murder of a hated councillor the Duke of Buckingham – who he had refused to sack.
For eleven years after Buckingham’s murder, and following a brief parliament, Charles rules alone, raising taxes by royal right alone. That is enough to make him bitterly unpopular. But it is his single-minded efforts to fulfil his father’s ambitions to create one British Protestant church that drives his kingdoms to rebellion. Two wars with Scotland are succeeded by revolt in Ireland. A year later, in 1642, the English turn on each other and the age of the roundhead and the cavalier is born.
According to Ackroyd more people died in the English civil war, as a percentage of population, than England lost in World War I. And the bloodshed didn’t end after Charles I was tried, condemned for treason against his own people, and beheaded. The subsequent dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell proved to be no great improvement on Charles’s ‘tyranny’ and after Cromwell died, the king’s eldest son was invited back as Charles II.
Ackroyd covers the reigns of the merry Charles II and his dourer brother James II, in short order, concluding in 1688, with James’s expulsion from England. Rejected as a Catholic James II spent the rest of his life in France, where his mother, Henrietta Maria, had spent so many desperate years during the civil war and its aftermath. It is romantic and tragic story, and Ackroyd packs it with colourful quotations and anecdotes. But despite having a chapter on ‘the women of war’ there is an absence of strong female portraits. Henrietta Maria is barely more than a shadow.
Ackroyd is also weak on analysis and makes some silly mistakes. Charles I was not crowned in a white cloak. Brilliana Harley, was a famous parliamentarian heroine, not a ‘royalist letter-writer’. It makes you wonder what else he has wrong and without references it is hard check his facts. Nevertheless, as you follow the remarkable successes and disastrous failings of the Stuart dynasty in England, you cannot but enjoy the exuberance of the ride.
An edited version of this review was published in the Mail on Sunday
January 10, 2019
Enjoyable, but the historian in me really does wish he'd cite his sources.
October 17, 2014
(I got an ARC of this book courtesy of the publisher through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.)
I like to say that you can't really go wrong with Peter Ackroyd, and it seems to be once again the case. Even though what I read of him years ago feels pretty far by now, I still stand by this opinion. The man has a knack to present historical elements in such a way that one just can't help but come back to his books no matter what—at least, I can't. I stopped counting how many times I put my tablet in Sleep mode, thinking "I should do something else/read all the other books that I should have reviewed long before this one", yet kept opening the file again after half an hour or so.
Of course, I'll also confess to a complete lack of impartiality when a book deals with the Civil Wars, since it's one of my favourite periods of British history (the other one being the Victorian era, but let's not go there for now).
What you won't find here, obviously, is a very detailed account of every little event of the 17th century: there's just not enough room for that, and I'm well aware of it. Rebellion is the third volume of "The History of England", and as such, it deals with the period as a whole. (If I wanted to know how exactly the battle of Naseby went, I... Actually, I would open another book I own, detailing precisely that, down to the bullets found years later on the battlefield.)
What you'll get here, however, is a solid account that can be read even if you're not a History major. In a compelling style, the author manages to convey causes and consequences with definite clarity, and even some humour. Because, let's be honest, this is a gem:
Also:
It gets to show that the historical figures we take for granted in terms of seriousness aren't always so. But then, there's no way now to forget about those assassination plots, right, since they pushed Cromwell to carry that gun?
The narrative (it reads like a narrative, not like something arid, for sure) is interspersed with such little anecdotes, as well as chapters about literature (Hobbes' Leviathan, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress...), science (Isaac Newton...), and other daily life happenings, reflecting how people lived in the period.
In short, heartily recommended by yours truly.
I like to say that you can't really go wrong with Peter Ackroyd, and it seems to be once again the case. Even though what I read of him years ago feels pretty far by now, I still stand by this opinion. The man has a knack to present historical elements in such a way that one just can't help but come back to his books no matter what—at least, I can't. I stopped counting how many times I put my tablet in Sleep mode, thinking "I should do something else/read all the other books that I should have reviewed long before this one", yet kept opening the file again after half an hour or so.
Of course, I'll also confess to a complete lack of impartiality when a book deals with the Civil Wars, since it's one of my favourite periods of British history (the other one being the Victorian era, but let's not go there for now).
What you won't find here, obviously, is a very detailed account of every little event of the 17th century: there's just not enough room for that, and I'm well aware of it. Rebellion is the third volume of "The History of England", and as such, it deals with the period as a whole. (If I wanted to know how exactly the battle of Naseby went, I... Actually, I would open another book I own, detailing precisely that, down to the bullets found years later on the battlefield.)
What you'll get here, however, is a solid account that can be read even if you're not a History major. In a compelling style, the author manages to convey causes and consequences with definite clarity, and even some humour. Because, let's be honest, this is a gem:
"At the end of the discussion Cromwell, in one of those fits of boisterousness or hysteria that punctuated his career, threw a cushion at one of the protagonists, Edmund Ludlow, before running downstairs; Ludlow pursued him, and in turn pummelled him with a cushion."
Also:
"Cromwell now always carried a gun. In a riding accident, later in the year, the pistol fired in his pocket and the wound kept him in bed for three weeks."
It gets to show that the historical figures we take for granted in terms of seriousness aren't always so. But then, there's no way now to forget about those assassination plots, right, since they pushed Cromwell to carry that gun?
The narrative (it reads like a narrative, not like something arid, for sure) is interspersed with such little anecdotes, as well as chapters about literature (Hobbes' Leviathan, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress...), science (Isaac Newton...), and other daily life happenings, reflecting how people lived in the period.
In short, heartily recommended by yours truly.
November 16, 2014
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 31, 2014
Disclaimer: ARC read via Netgalley.
I can hear you wondering. You’ve been wondering for the past three years. Do we really need another history of England? There are hundreds, thousands, maybe even a million (you can count, if you have the time), why do we need another one? How about a history of one of the –stan countries instead, you may ask.
Well, we are talking about Peter Ackroyd’s multiple volume history of England, so yes, we need this one.
The third volume in the series covers the Stuarts – from James I to James II losing the throne to his son-in-law.
What makes Ackroyd’s work better than average and well worth the reading are two things? The first is his style. While not the prose poem that his London is, the writing is chatty and intimate. In part this is simply style. Ackroyd makes sure the full impact of events is known, but this is a popular, common, every man’s history. The reader doesn’t need a degree in history, and important events are described in enough detail but not too much.
The most important thing is the little humorous and emotional touches. There is a wonderful passage about soap and how it connects to the English Civil War. There Muggletonians. There is debate about hacks in London. It is the story of James I and his feelings towards his eldest son, they died too early Henry.
Then there are the brief interludes dealing with major cultural issues, such as Hobbes’ Leviathan.
But I keep coming back to the little touches, the same events that are often overlooked or under seen or the huge events that are overseen and overanalyzed. Ackroyd keeps balance. When he introduces a little over looked detail – the attacks on brothels - he connects it. It might be included because of whimsy, but it also has a point. When he mentions the departure of the pilgrims, it is with a somewhat nod that the boats pass out the scope of the history he is writing so he lets it go.
An Everyman’s History is what this series is, not so much as in focus on the little guy, but in the way the events play out, on the effects. It is an intimate history, far more than say Simon Schma’s History of Britain. Ackroyd’s history is something to be read over wine while traveling, allowing the words to seep slowly in and stay forever.
January 23, 2020
So far, I'm amused that James I referred to his heir as "Baby Charles" even when the latter was a grown man about to be married off. I really like the author's inclusion of poems, songs, pamphlets, and insults from ordinary people of the time. Otherwise I would never have known that James I's hunky crush George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, was nicknamed the Duke of Fuckingham. I wish there were more economic history, though. I get that England was broke during the rule of James I, but I don't know why except that cheaper European options were hurting the cloth-making industry. There must have been more to it than that.
Update: Charles I outlawed spontaneous prayer and then took his queen to a mental hospital so they could laugh at its inhabitants. No wonder people hated this guy.
Update to update: England is in the midst of seven failed harvests. The price of bread has doubled, and the price of meat has increased 50%. Cromwell has just threatened to cut off Charles's head with the crown still on it. Also, during Charles's trial, the official was taking the roll of the judges, and one was absent. But the judge's wife was there, and she yelled, "He has more wit than to be here!"
Another update: Working my way through the Stillborn Parliament and the Long Parliament and the Rump Parliament and the Barebones Parliament. Also there have been chapters on women's history (depressingly sparse, but I understand that this is mostly because of a lack of historical sources), Milton, and Hobbes. My favorite name so far: Praise-God Barebone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise-...) My favorite title so far: Her She-Majesty Generalissima (self-bestowed title of Queen Henrietta Maria, although other sources said she was joking?!)
Another update: How does Nell Gwynn get only one sentence instead of an entire chapter???
After a Dutch raid on England: "Sir William Batten, surveyor of the navy, exclaimed, 'By God! I think the Devil shits Dutchmen!'"
Final update:
"It cannot be my beauty, for he must see that I have none; and it cannot be my wit, for he has not enough to know that I have any." —Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, wondering why the hell James II chose her as a mistress
Fascinating! I learned a lot about this period in English history. But I'm subtracting one star because Ackroyd fails to devote even one chapter to a woman. Nell Gwynn gets three sentences total, Henrietta Maria gets a few scattered references, Louise de Kérouaille gets little coverage despite her key role. I understand that sources related to women are sparse because of the beliefs and educational practices of the time. But all of the queens, some of the mistresses, and some of the princesses deserved their own chapters at the least, and of course I'd like to know about women at other levels of society. If you can recommend sources on women during this era, please let me know in the comments.
Update: Charles I outlawed spontaneous prayer and then took his queen to a mental hospital so they could laugh at its inhabitants. No wonder people hated this guy.
Update to update: England is in the midst of seven failed harvests. The price of bread has doubled, and the price of meat has increased 50%. Cromwell has just threatened to cut off Charles's head with the crown still on it. Also, during Charles's trial, the official was taking the roll of the judges, and one was absent. But the judge's wife was there, and she yelled, "He has more wit than to be here!"
Another update: Working my way through the Stillborn Parliament and the Long Parliament and the Rump Parliament and the Barebones Parliament. Also there have been chapters on women's history (depressingly sparse, but I understand that this is mostly because of a lack of historical sources), Milton, and Hobbes. My favorite name so far: Praise-God Barebone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise-...) My favorite title so far: Her She-Majesty Generalissima (self-bestowed title of Queen Henrietta Maria, although other sources said she was joking?!)
Another update: How does Nell Gwynn get only one sentence instead of an entire chapter???
After a Dutch raid on England: "Sir William Batten, surveyor of the navy, exclaimed, 'By God! I think the Devil shits Dutchmen!'"
Final update:
"It cannot be my beauty, for he must see that I have none; and it cannot be my wit, for he has not enough to know that I have any." —Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, wondering why the hell James II chose her as a mistress
Fascinating! I learned a lot about this period in English history. But I'm subtracting one star because Ackroyd fails to devote even one chapter to a woman. Nell Gwynn gets three sentences total, Henrietta Maria gets a few scattered references, Louise de Kérouaille gets little coverage despite her key role. I understand that sources related to women are sparse because of the beliefs and educational practices of the time. But all of the queens, some of the mistresses, and some of the princesses deserved their own chapters at the least, and of course I'd like to know about women at other levels of society. If you can recommend sources on women during this era, please let me know in the comments.
June 21, 2024
’Sperate Miseri, Cavete Felices: You that are unhappy, hope. You that are happy, fear’
A non-fiction history book I can definitively say I didn’t hate. We have come so far.
(I am literally a history major this is so embarrassing)
The English Civil War has always been an area in my historical knowledge that is lacking. I know the general gist of it. The two warring sides, the king at the time, the period it’s set, what the conflict was over. But never anything truly in depth. Ackroyd’s book was described as consumable, and engaging and that’s what hooked me.
And yeah, that’s a fair assessment of Civil War (the book not the event).
Ackroyd’s writing whilst still dry and mildly disinteresting at parts is never pretentious or too focused on how it sounds. You can tell that Ackroyd has not written this book to show how intelligent he is, but rather he just wants to write a thorough and chronological account of a period he is interested in. This in turn made me enjoy it more, and I thought the rather short chapters were a smart move. I wouldn’t class this as consumable for the ordinary person but I also wouldn’t class it as you need a PhD. It sits in that perfect middle ground which I wish more history books would.
Whilst all of the book was incredibly fascinating, I particularly enjoyed the sections on Charles I and Charles II. They’re both kings I know very little about, and I definitely was questioning my own historical misconceptions about both of them by the end. Finding out Charles II wasn’t just the party king but also a pretty intelligent conspirator and skilled user of political intrigue was such a revelation for me, and a side to him I see very few people talk about. Same goes for Charles I who I considered quite a villainous character but in reality was a decent man who just had some unfortunately outdated ideas.
Overall, Civil War gets 3/5 stars. My biggest complaint was the lack of comments on women in the period, however I do appreciate Ackroyd’s acknowledgment of this and chapter dedicated to a select few noble-women.
A non-fiction history book I can definitively say I didn’t hate. We have come so far.
(I am literally a history major this is so embarrassing)
The English Civil War has always been an area in my historical knowledge that is lacking. I know the general gist of it. The two warring sides, the king at the time, the period it’s set, what the conflict was over. But never anything truly in depth. Ackroyd’s book was described as consumable, and engaging and that’s what hooked me.
And yeah, that’s a fair assessment of Civil War (the book not the event).
Ackroyd’s writing whilst still dry and mildly disinteresting at parts is never pretentious or too focused on how it sounds. You can tell that Ackroyd has not written this book to show how intelligent he is, but rather he just wants to write a thorough and chronological account of a period he is interested in. This in turn made me enjoy it more, and I thought the rather short chapters were a smart move. I wouldn’t class this as consumable for the ordinary person but I also wouldn’t class it as you need a PhD. It sits in that perfect middle ground which I wish more history books would.
Whilst all of the book was incredibly fascinating, I particularly enjoyed the sections on Charles I and Charles II. They’re both kings I know very little about, and I definitely was questioning my own historical misconceptions about both of them by the end. Finding out Charles II wasn’t just the party king but also a pretty intelligent conspirator and skilled user of political intrigue was such a revelation for me, and a side to him I see very few people talk about. Same goes for Charles I who I considered quite a villainous character but in reality was a decent man who just had some unfortunately outdated ideas.
Overall, Civil War gets 3/5 stars. My biggest complaint was the lack of comments on women in the period, however I do appreciate Ackroyd’s acknowledgment of this and chapter dedicated to a select few noble-women.
July 9, 2021
Trečioji Ackroydo Anglijos istorijos knyga. Nuo Stiuartų valdymo iki nevaldymo, paskui vėl valdymo ir galiausiai nevaldymo. Kaip ir anksčiau – gana patraukliai, nuodugniai ir informatyviai. Pagavau save pasąmonėje visą tą Anglijos istoriją įvairiausiomis grožinėmis knygomis chronologizuojantį – aha, čia Dumas „Po dvidešimties metų“, čia Sabatinio „Kapitono Blado odisėja“, o čia – Stephensono „Barokinis ciklas“, etc.
Daug nesiplėsdamas – keturi iš penkių. Ir reiks pratęsti.
Daug nesiplėsdamas – keturi iš penkių. Ir reiks pratęsti.
February 4, 2015
A plague on all their houses...
The time of the doomed Stuart dynasty (in England) has always been one of those periods where I felt I knew the basics but didn't really understand the ins-and-outs of it all. Peter Ackroyd's history takes us from the accession of James I (VI of Scotland) to the throne of England on the death of Elizabeth in 1603, through to the flight of James II (VII) to France and the arrival of William of Orange and Mary in 1688. Since this is the third book in what I understand is to be a six-book series, Ackroyd doesn't delve much into the pre-Stuart era, nor does he say much about what happened after the events he is describing, but that doesn't present problems because he thoroughly explains the main players and factions as he goes along.
And what a bunch they were! I don't think I've ever read about a war where I so emphatically felt that I didn't want to support either side. While the Stuarts seem to have been a particularly inept, corrupt and often depraved crowd of absolutist monarchs, the Parliamentarians come across as a bunch of deeply unpleasant, power-hungry, money-grubbing, squabbling incompetents (clearly true precursors of today's lot). When Cromwell's military dictatorship begins to look like the good times, then it gives an indication of the awfulness of the alternatives. What a pity M. Guillotin hadn't been born yet...
Ackroyd's style is very accessible and he incorporates quotes from many contemporaneous sources - not just the people in power, but many fairly ordinary onlookers who give a flavour of the despair that must have been felt by the pawns in this bloody chess-game. Of course, we still can't hear the voices of the illiterate poor, but Ackroyd shows the impact on them of the various machinations of both sides, and the manipulation of them, usually via the various religious factions. Ackroyd also looks at the plays and writings that were produced at the time, showing how they were influenced by events, and how they would have been understood by the audiences of the day. And he discusses the impact of plague and fire, both as physical events and as how they would have been perceived symbolically.
As well as this clear picture of events in England, Ackroyd sets the story well into the international context. He manages to keep the reader on top of all the shifting treaties and loyalties, showing how dependant international affairs were on personal relationships at that time. We get a feel for the beginnings of the various European empires and how important that was becoming in determining alliances and enmities. And he reminds the reader that both Scotland and Ireland, now linked to England by a shared monarchy, played important roles in providing support or distraction to the English factions.
Overall, this is a very readable and interesting account of the period, written in a way that makes it easy for the non-academic reader to follow. It's certainly left me feeling much clearer about the reasons behind the events and about the personalities of the people involved. I appreciated that he didn't romanticise either side - his treatment felt very even-handed to me. But I'm afraid the question of whether I'd have wanted to be a Roundhead or a Cavalier remains unresolved - Cavalier probably, but only on the grounds that their hairdos were more fun... 4½ stars for me, so rounded up.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, St Martin's Press.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
The time of the doomed Stuart dynasty (in England) has always been one of those periods where I felt I knew the basics but didn't really understand the ins-and-outs of it all. Peter Ackroyd's history takes us from the accession of James I (VI of Scotland) to the throne of England on the death of Elizabeth in 1603, through to the flight of James II (VII) to France and the arrival of William of Orange and Mary in 1688. Since this is the third book in what I understand is to be a six-book series, Ackroyd doesn't delve much into the pre-Stuart era, nor does he say much about what happened after the events he is describing, but that doesn't present problems because he thoroughly explains the main players and factions as he goes along.
And what a bunch they were! I don't think I've ever read about a war where I so emphatically felt that I didn't want to support either side. While the Stuarts seem to have been a particularly inept, corrupt and often depraved crowd of absolutist monarchs, the Parliamentarians come across as a bunch of deeply unpleasant, power-hungry, money-grubbing, squabbling incompetents (clearly true precursors of today's lot). When Cromwell's military dictatorship begins to look like the good times, then it gives an indication of the awfulness of the alternatives. What a pity M. Guillotin hadn't been born yet...
Ackroyd's style is very accessible and he incorporates quotes from many contemporaneous sources - not just the people in power, but many fairly ordinary onlookers who give a flavour of the despair that must have been felt by the pawns in this bloody chess-game. Of course, we still can't hear the voices of the illiterate poor, but Ackroyd shows the impact on them of the various machinations of both sides, and the manipulation of them, usually via the various religious factions. Ackroyd also looks at the plays and writings that were produced at the time, showing how they were influenced by events, and how they would have been understood by the audiences of the day. And he discusses the impact of plague and fire, both as physical events and as how they would have been perceived symbolically.
As well as this clear picture of events in England, Ackroyd sets the story well into the international context. He manages to keep the reader on top of all the shifting treaties and loyalties, showing how dependant international affairs were on personal relationships at that time. We get a feel for the beginnings of the various European empires and how important that was becoming in determining alliances and enmities. And he reminds the reader that both Scotland and Ireland, now linked to England by a shared monarchy, played important roles in providing support or distraction to the English factions.
Overall, this is a very readable and interesting account of the period, written in a way that makes it easy for the non-academic reader to follow. It's certainly left me feeling much clearer about the reasons behind the events and about the personalities of the people involved. I appreciated that he didn't romanticise either side - his treatment felt very even-handed to me. But I'm afraid the question of whether I'd have wanted to be a Roundhead or a Cavalier remains unresolved - Cavalier probably, but only on the grounds that their hairdos were more fun... 4½ stars for me, so rounded up.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, St Martin's Press.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
April 13, 2016
I don’t like brussel sprouts, but when I find them on my plate I eat them because I know they’re good for me. Reading this book was like eating a barrel full of brussel sprouts. I finished it…..ate every last one of the slimy green balls…… and I’m sure I’m a better person for it.....but cripe, was it a chore.
I had only the most rudimentary understanding of 17th century British history; basically I knew there was a duce of Jameses, a duce of Charleses and that somewhere, stuck in the middle of it all was religious dissent, a civil war and the commonwealth reign of Oliver Cromwell. The reason I chose to gain a fuller understanding of this history was because of its significance to American history. Jamestown was colonized early in the reign of James I, the Pilgrims and Puritans, religious dissenters from England seeking freedom of worship in the new world, settled New England a couple of decades later and, throughout the century, thousands of English migrated to the American colonies either to flee the troubles at home or as dragooned victims reduced to indentured quasi-slaves as punishment for being on the wrong side of one or the other British controversies. Moreover, the political evolution of England during this period gave rise to the British Enlightenment and the writings of Hobbs, Sydney and Locke that had such a profound influence on America’s founding generation a century later. Given these and other profoundly important social, cultural and political links I felt that to better understand my own country’s history it was necessary to understand the history of England during this period.
It is with this purpose in mind that I purchased and read Mr. Ackroyd's big barrel of brussel sprouts.
Look, I understood when I bought it that the book was not, nor did it need to be, an exposition on the ways the English Civil War impacted the American Colonial experience. In fact, the story could have been told quite well and given me the insights I was looking for without mentioning England’s American colonies once. However, what I did expect and what I was horribly disappointed about when I didn’t get it was some meaningful explanation of the motivations of the major actors and the society they represented. That certain people did certain things on certain dates is explained in excruciating detail, but fundamentally why they did the things they did or what lasting impact their acts had on the history of England is, in Ackroyd’s hands, left wholly to the reader’s powers of deduction to work out. There are dates, times, places, rudimentary sketches of individual personalities and endless lines of contemporary plays, slips of doggerel or amusing examples of personal polemics in each and every place where meaningful analysis of events and motivations ought to be. After having read “Rebellion” I now know the history of England in the 17th century but sadly, am far less wiser for it than I ought to be.
Enough with brussel sprouts – it’s time for a quart of ice cream and a good cry (if only Nicholas Sparks wrote history
I had only the most rudimentary understanding of 17th century British history; basically I knew there was a duce of Jameses, a duce of Charleses and that somewhere, stuck in the middle of it all was religious dissent, a civil war and the commonwealth reign of Oliver Cromwell. The reason I chose to gain a fuller understanding of this history was because of its significance to American history. Jamestown was colonized early in the reign of James I, the Pilgrims and Puritans, religious dissenters from England seeking freedom of worship in the new world, settled New England a couple of decades later and, throughout the century, thousands of English migrated to the American colonies either to flee the troubles at home or as dragooned victims reduced to indentured quasi-slaves as punishment for being on the wrong side of one or the other British controversies. Moreover, the political evolution of England during this period gave rise to the British Enlightenment and the writings of Hobbs, Sydney and Locke that had such a profound influence on America’s founding generation a century later. Given these and other profoundly important social, cultural and political links I felt that to better understand my own country’s history it was necessary to understand the history of England during this period.
It is with this purpose in mind that I purchased and read Mr. Ackroyd's big barrel of brussel sprouts.
Look, I understood when I bought it that the book was not, nor did it need to be, an exposition on the ways the English Civil War impacted the American Colonial experience. In fact, the story could have been told quite well and given me the insights I was looking for without mentioning England’s American colonies once. However, what I did expect and what I was horribly disappointed about when I didn’t get it was some meaningful explanation of the motivations of the major actors and the society they represented. That certain people did certain things on certain dates is explained in excruciating detail, but fundamentally why they did the things they did or what lasting impact their acts had on the history of England is, in Ackroyd’s hands, left wholly to the reader’s powers of deduction to work out. There are dates, times, places, rudimentary sketches of individual personalities and endless lines of contemporary plays, slips of doggerel or amusing examples of personal polemics in each and every place where meaningful analysis of events and motivations ought to be. After having read “Rebellion” I now know the history of England in the 17th century but sadly, am far less wiser for it than I ought to be.
Enough with brussel sprouts – it’s time for a quart of ice cream and a good cry (if only Nicholas Sparks wrote history
June 18, 2017
Another sterling, straightforward account of the history of England, this time covering the years of the Stuart kings, from 1603-1689. The best section is by definition the Civil War era, the slow downfall of Charles I, his execution, and the Commonwealth era. But the strength of these volumes is how they disentangle very dense historical events, complicated by intertangled religious and political beliefs that often shift, and make them easy to follow. In these years, we see the follies of four kings and one Lord Protector, who are very human and very flawed. We also see the more important social and cultural contributions by important Englishmen such as Samuel Pepys and Sir Isaac Newton. If you want a straightforward survey of English history, Ackroyd's accounts are perfect and eminently readable.
December 20, 2021
King James had already been king of Scotland for 36 years before being also crowned in England in 1603. He’s the guy who brings us the famed King James Bible. Kitchens and separate bedrooms were coming into vogue. Stairs replaced ladders and chairs replaced benches, and knives and forks replaced daggers and spoons. This was a great period for music: Dowland, Morley, and Byrd. “A man who could not take part in a madrigal, or play the lute, was considered to be unfinished.” Shakespeare’s late plays were written during the reign of James. The Mayflower leaves with Pilgrims for Massachusetts in 1620.
Then comes Charles I who ruled over three kingdoms. “The six counties of Ulster had also largely fallen into the hands of Scottish Presbyterians.” During this time the terms “roundhead” and “cavalier” become popular and meant opponents of the king (roundhead) and followers of the king (cavalier). Pikes were supposed to be 18 feet long and have a steel head. At Marston Moor, 4,000 of the king’s troops are killed; “the largest battle ever fought on English soil.” Cromwell wins the battle over the king. Cromwell creates the New Model Army: a regular army without aristocrats. The battle of Naseby is another huge defeat for the king where 5,000 of his men are taken prisoner. Cromwell officially breaks with the king. The war between them is “the bloodiest war in English history.” Cromwell ends up with a Commonwealth and Charles I is executed. In 1649, the office of King is formally abolished.
According to the Fifth Monarchy, Christ was to reappear in 1694. When husbands would return from drinking, their wives would call out, Christ, is that you again? A Treason Act is passed to make it high treason to criticize the government. So much for freedom and liberty under the Commonwealth. Cromwell treats the Irish as less than human and he commits slaughters there in Drogheda and Wexford which are still talked about today. Cromwell’s battles win over the three kingdoms. These were the days of the rump Parliament and Hobbes Leviathan. Cromwell becomes an autocrat in all but name and has more power and authority than any king has had. He creates his own secret service. Question at the time: How does a representative Parliament deal with a dictatorship? No news could be printed without permission from Cromwell’s spymaster, John Thurloe. Pastimes of the people are attacked. Colonel Pride kills the bears at the bear-garden. If you travelled on a Sunday, you could be put in the stocks or a cage. James Naylor, a Quaker, gets his tongue bored through with a red-hot iron and the letter B (for blasphemer) branded on his forehead. Public sympathy for Cromwell hits an all-time low. Who knew that people don’t like being told what to do? Few felt safe. Cromwell was into a global empire. On the good side, Cromwell does bring opera to England.
The monarchy is restored in 1660. Then comes the comedies of the Restoration period, like Wycherley’s The Country Wife. Charles II will rule until 1685. Fancy men still did not wear wigs. The King’s palace at Whitehall had 2,000 rooms. Charles II puts 4,000 Quakers in prison. “It was ordered that no book could be published without the approval of an official censor.” An English “amusement” for the people at the time was “the flinging at cocks” where you tethered a defenseless bird and then threw sticks at it. Whoever brutally rendered the bird senseless with a stick got to eat it. Sexual predator Samuel Pepys enjoyed beating his boy until his wrists hurt. And his wife Elizabeth would beat their little girl and lock her in the cellar at night. What a compassionate charming people, these Brits were. The plague returns to London. The Duke of Buckingham allowed for religious toleration which greatly helped the Quakers. Louis XIV “ruled the most powerful state in Europe.”
“By 1685 the English has the largest merchant fleet in the world.” Towns quickened their pace as each English town now had stagecoaches going between them. English mines were turning out coal, tin and iron ore. Industrialization makes the towns of Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Halifax grow fast. Whig (Protestant) and Tory (Catholic) become common words. Then comes James II, a Catholic king, big into colonialism and naval power. He grants religious liberty to all his subjects. Meeting houses appeared with that date: 1687, the year when they finally became free. William of Orange announces his invasion of England. The Glorious Revolution is the end of James II (the last Stuart king) and the start of William of Orange (William III). A good book.
Then comes Charles I who ruled over three kingdoms. “The six counties of Ulster had also largely fallen into the hands of Scottish Presbyterians.” During this time the terms “roundhead” and “cavalier” become popular and meant opponents of the king (roundhead) and followers of the king (cavalier). Pikes were supposed to be 18 feet long and have a steel head. At Marston Moor, 4,000 of the king’s troops are killed; “the largest battle ever fought on English soil.” Cromwell wins the battle over the king. Cromwell creates the New Model Army: a regular army without aristocrats. The battle of Naseby is another huge defeat for the king where 5,000 of his men are taken prisoner. Cromwell officially breaks with the king. The war between them is “the bloodiest war in English history.” Cromwell ends up with a Commonwealth and Charles I is executed. In 1649, the office of King is formally abolished.
According to the Fifth Monarchy, Christ was to reappear in 1694. When husbands would return from drinking, their wives would call out, Christ, is that you again? A Treason Act is passed to make it high treason to criticize the government. So much for freedom and liberty under the Commonwealth. Cromwell treats the Irish as less than human and he commits slaughters there in Drogheda and Wexford which are still talked about today. Cromwell’s battles win over the three kingdoms. These were the days of the rump Parliament and Hobbes Leviathan. Cromwell becomes an autocrat in all but name and has more power and authority than any king has had. He creates his own secret service. Question at the time: How does a representative Parliament deal with a dictatorship? No news could be printed without permission from Cromwell’s spymaster, John Thurloe. Pastimes of the people are attacked. Colonel Pride kills the bears at the bear-garden. If you travelled on a Sunday, you could be put in the stocks or a cage. James Naylor, a Quaker, gets his tongue bored through with a red-hot iron and the letter B (for blasphemer) branded on his forehead. Public sympathy for Cromwell hits an all-time low. Who knew that people don’t like being told what to do? Few felt safe. Cromwell was into a global empire. On the good side, Cromwell does bring opera to England.
The monarchy is restored in 1660. Then comes the comedies of the Restoration period, like Wycherley’s The Country Wife. Charles II will rule until 1685. Fancy men still did not wear wigs. The King’s palace at Whitehall had 2,000 rooms. Charles II puts 4,000 Quakers in prison. “It was ordered that no book could be published without the approval of an official censor.” An English “amusement” for the people at the time was “the flinging at cocks” where you tethered a defenseless bird and then threw sticks at it. Whoever brutally rendered the bird senseless with a stick got to eat it. Sexual predator Samuel Pepys enjoyed beating his boy until his wrists hurt. And his wife Elizabeth would beat their little girl and lock her in the cellar at night. What a compassionate charming people, these Brits were. The plague returns to London. The Duke of Buckingham allowed for religious toleration which greatly helped the Quakers. Louis XIV “ruled the most powerful state in Europe.”
“By 1685 the English has the largest merchant fleet in the world.” Towns quickened their pace as each English town now had stagecoaches going between them. English mines were turning out coal, tin and iron ore. Industrialization makes the towns of Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Halifax grow fast. Whig (Protestant) and Tory (Catholic) become common words. Then comes James II, a Catholic king, big into colonialism and naval power. He grants religious liberty to all his subjects. Meeting houses appeared with that date: 1687, the year when they finally became free. William of Orange announces his invasion of England. The Glorious Revolution is the end of James II (the last Stuart king) and the start of William of Orange (William III). A good book.
June 2, 2022
Being a military history buff I knew stuff about the civil war but not so much before except a bit of contextualization and next to nothing after.
Peter Ackroyd filled in the blanks for me in this book covering the whole Stuart monarchy.
It is pleasant and very easy to read- as opposed to the sometimes dryness of more scholarly books- and again Ackroyd drops in interesting information on famous people or lifestyles in between details of events.
A perfect way to learn something without being bored
Peter Ackroyd filled in the blanks for me in this book covering the whole Stuart monarchy.
It is pleasant and very easy to read- as opposed to the sometimes dryness of more scholarly books- and again Ackroyd drops in interesting information on famous people or lifestyles in between details of events.
A perfect way to learn something without being bored
July 17, 2019
Review to Come
December 10, 2015
An informative book overall. The random chapters about various artists were a little annoying. An example would be the Isaac Newton chapter. I understand Newton's significance to English history but the chapter felt like it was randomly thrown into the book to fill space. There were a few chapters like this especially towards the end of the book. I just skimmed through most of them since they were essentially Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately for me, my kindle edition did not include some of the extra illustrations and footnotes that more than likely would have made this book a better read.
April 28, 2025
I had previously read Ackroyd's "Foundation" which covered the earliest beginnings of England all the way to the Tudors. While not bad, the sheer scope of the time was far beyond the ability of the size of the book to adequately capture, and the entire venture ended as a basic, but never bad, survey of a vast span of time. Rebellion, which covers the reign of the Stuart dynasty, is far more tightly focused in the time frame and thus is a far better history book.
England, during its long history, has had several dynasties from the Plantagenets to the Tudors. Few were as disastrous as the Stuarts. With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the Tudor line came to an end. But, while the Tudor line is extinct, the great-granddaughter of Henry VII of England, who was Mary, Queen of Scots (she was executed by Elizabeth as a rival for the throne) has a son, James. Properly known as James VI, King of Scotland. He will become James I, King of England and the primogenitor of the Stuart dynasty.
The Stuarts had the unfortunate luck of ruling during a truly tumultuous time in English history. It is a period that will have two major fulcrum points upon which the equilibrium of English society will turn. The first is the coming religious conflict between the established Chruch of England (Anglicans), the out-of-power (since Henry VIII) Catholics, and the newly rising power of the Puritans. The second will be the growing power of Parliament.
Add to this the Stuart tendency towards absolutist views on the divine right of Kings, coupled with a perpetual lack of funds, thus necessitating calling Parliaments to pay for their various expenses (mainly military expenditures, but also a lavish lifestyle).
The problems were there right from the start. James I was crowned in 1603. Within two years, angry Catholics would launch the Guy Fawkes Gunpowder plot to blow up the King and the Lords. James also tried to combine the realms of Scotland and England. James I had a profligate lifestyle, and his battles with Parliament for funding would presage the conflicts to come. James also made no friends with his trying to marry his son to the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain, since this was a fanatically Catholic country. Conflicts like this would only make it more difficult for James to deal with Parliament.
But James would be the lucky Stuart. His reign presaged the conflicts to come, but he died in 1625, having reigned over some momentous events. James died a fairly popular monarch, England had started the plantation of Ulster in Northern Ireland, and James started the North American colonisation process with Jamestown. But James also poisoned the well for his successors. His fascination with absolutism was passed on to his son, Charles II, and his financial profligacy was also to be a trait he'd pass on.
Charles I, son of James, was the second son. His older brother, Henry Frederick (Prince of Wales) who is to be heir, has died. The relatively incompetent Charles has come to the throne. He is associated with the homosexual Duke of Buckingham and various foreign misadventures. Buckingham's poor military record and disastrous campaigns, plus the profligate Charles' lifestyle, will cause them to be in eternal conflict with Parliament. During this time, the various religious conflicts, such as the Bishops' War, will break out, and this is the time of the Long Parliament and Charles's attempts to disband it. This will lead to the English Civil War, Charles' execution, and the rise of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector of England.
When Cromwell dies, the controversial and unpopular parliamentary rule ends, and Charles II is restored to the throne. Charles proved to have all the Stuart family problems. He was also perpetually broke and picked unnecessary fights. Charles wanted to introduce religious freedom acts which would benefit the Catholics, and his brother James, Duke of York, had become a fanatical catholic. All of this would cause tremendous conflict. This is the birth of the Whig and Tory parties. Charles would have the unfortunate luck to reign over the Great Plague of 1665 and the Great Fire of London in 1666. His wars against the Dutch were a failure, and his attempts to find equal ground with France would also fail.
However, Charles II was a big patron of the arts and science. From Newton to Hobbes, many artistic and architectural feats were under the reign of Charles, as well as the Puritan movement towards the American colonies that would begin.
Overall? This was a really well-done encapsulation of the Stuart reign and their conflicts with Parliament and the English Civil War. Ackroyd's style of writing is far better suited to this shorter time period, and the side note chapters filled with interesting minutiae make far more sense in relation to the material of the book.
This was a very enjoyable history book and a pleasure to add to my collection. If you're looking at a good encapsulation of the Stuart reign and the English Civil War this is a great starting point.
England, during its long history, has had several dynasties from the Plantagenets to the Tudors. Few were as disastrous as the Stuarts. With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the Tudor line came to an end. But, while the Tudor line is extinct, the great-granddaughter of Henry VII of England, who was Mary, Queen of Scots (she was executed by Elizabeth as a rival for the throne) has a son, James. Properly known as James VI, King of Scotland. He will become James I, King of England and the primogenitor of the Stuart dynasty.
The Stuarts had the unfortunate luck of ruling during a truly tumultuous time in English history. It is a period that will have two major fulcrum points upon which the equilibrium of English society will turn. The first is the coming religious conflict between the established Chruch of England (Anglicans), the out-of-power (since Henry VIII) Catholics, and the newly rising power of the Puritans. The second will be the growing power of Parliament.
Add to this the Stuart tendency towards absolutist views on the divine right of Kings, coupled with a perpetual lack of funds, thus necessitating calling Parliaments to pay for their various expenses (mainly military expenditures, but also a lavish lifestyle).
The problems were there right from the start. James I was crowned in 1603. Within two years, angry Catholics would launch the Guy Fawkes Gunpowder plot to blow up the King and the Lords. James also tried to combine the realms of Scotland and England. James I had a profligate lifestyle, and his battles with Parliament for funding would presage the conflicts to come. James also made no friends with his trying to marry his son to the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain, since this was a fanatically Catholic country. Conflicts like this would only make it more difficult for James to deal with Parliament.
But James would be the lucky Stuart. His reign presaged the conflicts to come, but he died in 1625, having reigned over some momentous events. James died a fairly popular monarch, England had started the plantation of Ulster in Northern Ireland, and James started the North American colonisation process with Jamestown. But James also poisoned the well for his successors. His fascination with absolutism was passed on to his son, Charles II, and his financial profligacy was also to be a trait he'd pass on.
Charles I, son of James, was the second son. His older brother, Henry Frederick (Prince of Wales) who is to be heir, has died. The relatively incompetent Charles has come to the throne. He is associated with the homosexual Duke of Buckingham and various foreign misadventures. Buckingham's poor military record and disastrous campaigns, plus the profligate Charles' lifestyle, will cause them to be in eternal conflict with Parliament. During this time, the various religious conflicts, such as the Bishops' War, will break out, and this is the time of the Long Parliament and Charles's attempts to disband it. This will lead to the English Civil War, Charles' execution, and the rise of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector of England.
When Cromwell dies, the controversial and unpopular parliamentary rule ends, and Charles II is restored to the throne. Charles proved to have all the Stuart family problems. He was also perpetually broke and picked unnecessary fights. Charles wanted to introduce religious freedom acts which would benefit the Catholics, and his brother James, Duke of York, had become a fanatical catholic. All of this would cause tremendous conflict. This is the birth of the Whig and Tory parties. Charles would have the unfortunate luck to reign over the Great Plague of 1665 and the Great Fire of London in 1666. His wars against the Dutch were a failure, and his attempts to find equal ground with France would also fail.
However, Charles II was a big patron of the arts and science. From Newton to Hobbes, many artistic and architectural feats were under the reign of Charles, as well as the Puritan movement towards the American colonies that would begin.
Overall? This was a really well-done encapsulation of the Stuart reign and their conflicts with Parliament and the English Civil War. Ackroyd's style of writing is far better suited to this shorter time period, and the side note chapters filled with interesting minutiae make far more sense in relation to the material of the book.
This was a very enjoyable history book and a pleasure to add to my collection. If you're looking at a good encapsulation of the Stuart reign and the English Civil War this is a great starting point.
October 21, 2021
I picked this up because my son is currently taking a class on “England under the Stuarts” for his Legal History concentration. This era is pretty interesting from a legal perspective: the rising conflict between religion and liberty, debates over the divine right of kings, the wild transformations of Parliament.
It’s a nice, readable history. It begins with Sir Robert Carey’s frantic ride from London to Edinburgh in March 1603, to be the first to inform King James VI of Scotland that he was now also King James I of England. It ends when that king’s grandson James II flees to France and leaves the throne to his son-in-law and daughter, William and Mary.
Maybe it’s because I didn’t read the first two books in Ackroyd’s “History of England” series, but the opening chapters on the rule of James I seemed disorganized and rushed, as the author was understandably eager to get to Charles I and the civil war, which is the best part of this history.
There are several asides discussing contemporary literature, which are a little distracting.
It’s a nice, readable history. It begins with Sir Robert Carey’s frantic ride from London to Edinburgh in March 1603, to be the first to inform King James VI of Scotland that he was now also King James I of England. It ends when that king’s grandson James II flees to France and leaves the throne to his son-in-law and daughter, William and Mary.
Maybe it’s because I didn’t read the first two books in Ackroyd’s “History of England” series, but the opening chapters on the rule of James I seemed disorganized and rushed, as the author was understandably eager to get to Charles I and the civil war, which is the best part of this history.
There are several asides discussing contemporary literature, which are a little distracting.
January 13, 2025
The Tudor & Stuart periods require a certain common levity of style. In between kings & battles, a play must be recreated. Between advancement in letters & science, a surviving building must be walked. The interminable noble titles will be leavened by citations and diary quotes, be it Pepys or a Lord of the Privvy. David Starkey brought to life the six wives of Henry VIII this way; Antonia Fraser & Allison Weir are adept at this at every turn.
But twice James and Charles with the broil of a civil war between them is too much to handle in such a BREEZY manner in a single book...
Not a stepstone.
But twice James and Charles with the broil of a civil war between them is too much to handle in such a BREEZY manner in a single book...
Not a stepstone.
May 9, 2018
can't go wrong with Peter Ackroyd. Guarenteed to be beautifully written, idiosyncratic and thought-provoking.
July 15, 2015
Enjoyable, fast-paced, and intensely atmospheric. Ackroyd mines his sources for an authentic feeling of everyday life during these turbulent times. Quotes from the sometimes potty-mouthed Stuart kings are especially entertaining; noteworthy, too, for me, were the many literary and biographical interpolations, discussing the lives of Newton, Dryden and Samuel Pepys, or the still-shocking liberties of Restoration comedy. If you'd like to know history but aren't seriously "into" history, this is for you.
June 9, 2018
This book has taken me over two weeks to read, and actually was good in every way. I hover between four and five stars because at times there was a lack of analysis. Example is why did Oliver Cromwell's son Richard abdicate? I've read in other books that the son wasn't intellectually fit to rule England, to put it politely, but in this book no reason is given. On the other hand this book has a terrific and easy to follow narrative, and I was never lost as to what year it was or what was happening. I highly recommend this read.
December 7, 2017
A return to the balance between great events, and at least some of their cultural setting. The level of detail in this series seems to be 'just right' to get beneath the catalogue of dates, and give more of the whys behind the whats. Having said that, this episode did begin to fall into a haze of parliamentary and kingly disputes, and it was a relief to get to the end....for the moment.
May 26, 2019
“Rebellion” is book #3 in Peter Ackroyd’s encyclopedic history of England. It is my fourth book about the era of the Stuart dynasty in 2019, if I count “The Last Highlander,” about Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, who was the last nobleman beheaded in English history, after the failed 1745 rebellion to put Charles Edward Stuart on the throne.
Anyway, Ackroyd is exceptionally readable, mixing in info about “normal” Englishmen and their lives along w/ the constant squabbling between King and nobles, and during the seventeenth century, between King and Parliament, which really came into its own as the actual ruler of England during this century.
Again, I am convinced that the Stuarts were the most feckless bunch of idiots to ever rule England (although the Hanoverians were no prizes either, but I digress). James VI of Scotland couldn’t wait to get his hands on the English crown and all its riches. He wasted tons of money on his favorites. His son, Charles I, was even worse. He was so sure of his own opinion that he caused a Civil War, which he lost, along w/ his head. Then the poor English had to put up w/ Oliver Cromwell arguing w/ Parliament as well—even though he’d won the War FOR Parliament! If a normal English person cared about religion at all after the burnings of the Tudors, they would have been terrified to have any opinion at ALL during the years of the War and the Protectorate! Sheesh! Parliament bungled everything so badly that after Cromwell’s death, and his son’s ineffectual rule, the dissolute Charles II was asked to become King. He cared nothing about anything but sex, apparently. The court was disgusting and licentious, just like their king. Thus begins the English aristocracy being totally good-for-nothing and needing abolished. Charles eventually dies and his Catholic brother, James, becomes King—but not for long. Parliament just won’t deal w/ a Roman Catholic King. James II’s son-in-law And Daughter are invited to “invade” England, called the Glorious Revolution b/c there was no blood shed.
That’s a lot of trauma for a country to endure in 85 years—from Elizabeth I to the Glorious Revolution. Up next: “Rebellion.” I suspect the American Revolution will play a prominent role in it.
I only gave the book four stars b/c there are a LOT of names and religious/political sides to follow, along w/ all the Civil War battles. Maybe other readers would have an easier time keeping all that straight than I did.
Anyway, Ackroyd is exceptionally readable, mixing in info about “normal” Englishmen and their lives along w/ the constant squabbling between King and nobles, and during the seventeenth century, between King and Parliament, which really came into its own as the actual ruler of England during this century.
Again, I am convinced that the Stuarts were the most feckless bunch of idiots to ever rule England (although the Hanoverians were no prizes either, but I digress). James VI of Scotland couldn’t wait to get his hands on the English crown and all its riches. He wasted tons of money on his favorites. His son, Charles I, was even worse. He was so sure of his own opinion that he caused a Civil War, which he lost, along w/ his head. Then the poor English had to put up w/ Oliver Cromwell arguing w/ Parliament as well—even though he’d won the War FOR Parliament! If a normal English person cared about religion at all after the burnings of the Tudors, they would have been terrified to have any opinion at ALL during the years of the War and the Protectorate! Sheesh! Parliament bungled everything so badly that after Cromwell’s death, and his son’s ineffectual rule, the dissolute Charles II was asked to become King. He cared nothing about anything but sex, apparently. The court was disgusting and licentious, just like their king. Thus begins the English aristocracy being totally good-for-nothing and needing abolished. Charles eventually dies and his Catholic brother, James, becomes King—but not for long. Parliament just won’t deal w/ a Roman Catholic King. James II’s son-in-law And Daughter are invited to “invade” England, called the Glorious Revolution b/c there was no blood shed.
That’s a lot of trauma for a country to endure in 85 years—from Elizabeth I to the Glorious Revolution. Up next: “Rebellion.” I suspect the American Revolution will play a prominent role in it.
I only gave the book four stars b/c there are a LOT of names and religious/political sides to follow, along w/ all the Civil War battles. Maybe other readers would have an easier time keeping all that straight than I did.
June 29, 2024
In Rebellion: The History of England from James I to The Glorious Revolution, noted British historian, Peter Ackroyd chronicles the notable events that happened during the Stuart dynasty. Beginning with the death of Elizabeth I and ending with the nearly bloodless coup of William II (of Orange), this vivid account covers the fractious relationship between the House of Stuart and Parliament. This continuous conflict would lead to a Civil War and the death of Charles 1 nearly tearing England apart. As a result, the country pivoted to Oliver Cromwell in search of safety and stability. Despite his best intentions, Cromwell made Britain yearn and turn to Charles II and the restoration of the British Monarchy. However, the chasm between the King and Parliament remained, causing the country to reach beyond its borders and ask William II to ascend the throne in hope that he could maintain a much-longed-for peace.
Rebellion is an in-depth and riveting account of English History during an incredibly turbulent time of change and chaos. It is a well-written and well-researched volume. Ackroyd is an excellent writer and presents a history that is exceptionally readable and informative. The personalities that drove events are presented in the context of their culture, literature, and art. In addition, Ackroyd communicates with a sense of humor and an even-handedness that makes Rebellion both entertaining and enlightening. I am surprised that Ackroyd didn’t deal in more detail with the retribution that Charles II dealt those who killed his father. That said, the book seems to be without the political advocacy so prevalent in recent history books. Rebellion is an excellent edition, and I would highly recommend to anyone interested in British History.
I was given a free copy in exchange for my honest review.
Rebellion is an in-depth and riveting account of English History during an incredibly turbulent time of change and chaos. It is a well-written and well-researched volume. Ackroyd is an excellent writer and presents a history that is exceptionally readable and informative. The personalities that drove events are presented in the context of their culture, literature, and art. In addition, Ackroyd communicates with a sense of humor and an even-handedness that makes Rebellion both entertaining and enlightening. I am surprised that Ackroyd didn’t deal in more detail with the retribution that Charles II dealt those who killed his father. That said, the book seems to be without the political advocacy so prevalent in recent history books. Rebellion is an excellent edition, and I would highly recommend to anyone interested in British History.
I was given a free copy in exchange for my honest review.
October 2, 2017
"Civil War" is het derde deel uit "The History of England" van Peter Ackroyd. Deze schrijver schrijft boeiend, maar in het geheel is dit boek, en bij uitbreiding de hele reeks, niet simpel!
De eerste 2 delen las ik al eerder, dit derde deel had ik al zeker een jaar liggen. Het feit dat ik dit boek NU las, is omdat ik op vakantie in Engeland tegen de grenzen van mijn kennis van de Engelse geschiedenis liep. Kan ik spontaan één en ander vertellen over The war of the Roses of over The Tudors, over de Stuarts wist ik niets. Na een bezoek aan Boscobel House waar de latere King Charles II zich even schuil hield, wou ik er snel meer over weten.
Natuurlijk zal ik het meeste van wat ik net las snel weer vergeten, maar er is nu een zaadje van kennis geplant over de tijd na Elizabeth I, over de 17e E. Een erg boeiende tijd met opstanden tegen koning die meent dat hij almachtig is, met godsdienstoproer en -onrust, de uitbouw van het parlement (House of Commons, House of Lords, the Tories (royalisten) en de Whigs), de opkomst en het bestuur van Oliver Cromwell en zoveel meer.
Zeer interessant en herkenbaar! Vervang de namen van groeperingen of ijveraars door namen van nu, Trump, Catalonië, IS, ... er is waarlijk niets veranderd. Het zoeken naar macht, naar het zelf beter hebben, naar het grote gelijk, toen en nu, ... niets is er veranderd - pamfletten, "fake news", beperking van de persvrijheid, het zit er allemaal in.
Verhelderend - Interessant - niet simpel!
De eerste 2 delen las ik al eerder, dit derde deel had ik al zeker een jaar liggen. Het feit dat ik dit boek NU las, is omdat ik op vakantie in Engeland tegen de grenzen van mijn kennis van de Engelse geschiedenis liep. Kan ik spontaan één en ander vertellen over The war of the Roses of over The Tudors, over de Stuarts wist ik niets. Na een bezoek aan Boscobel House waar de latere King Charles II zich even schuil hield, wou ik er snel meer over weten.
Natuurlijk zal ik het meeste van wat ik net las snel weer vergeten, maar er is nu een zaadje van kennis geplant over de tijd na Elizabeth I, over de 17e E. Een erg boeiende tijd met opstanden tegen koning die meent dat hij almachtig is, met godsdienstoproer en -onrust, de uitbouw van het parlement (House of Commons, House of Lords, the Tories (royalisten) en de Whigs), de opkomst en het bestuur van Oliver Cromwell en zoveel meer.
Zeer interessant en herkenbaar! Vervang de namen van groeperingen of ijveraars door namen van nu, Trump, Catalonië, IS, ... er is waarlijk niets veranderd. Het zoeken naar macht, naar het zelf beter hebben, naar het grote gelijk, toen en nu, ... niets is er veranderd - pamfletten, "fake news", beperking van de persvrijheid, het zit er allemaal in.
Verhelderend - Interessant - niet simpel!
October 9, 2019
I always enjoy Mr Ackroyd’s narrative, wit and insight. His obsession with London and English consciousness is not only infectious but approachable. The pace is quick and if one wishes to further plumb the depths of incidents or personages he touches on, there are more specialized resources out there. For instance, the gun powder plot in this book is only a few pages long, which he quickly departs from to carry on the fuller story of the Stuart reign. Also intermixed are examples from life on the street and prominent thinkers and pioneers of the age, without being wholly centered on the workings and conflicts of monarchy and parliament. A great intro and catchup on the English 17th century.
September 16, 2021
4.5/5 rounding up.
Covers 17th century England immediately from the arrival of James I to the Glorious Revolution. Mainly about the kings, major individuals and religion. Things like lower society and the economy are covered very briefly. But there are also shorter chapters spread through the book on the arts, science and philosophy. The writing style is very good imo. Also a decent further reading list.
Covers 17th century England immediately from the arrival of James I to the Glorious Revolution. Mainly about the kings, major individuals and religion. Things like lower society and the economy are covered very briefly. But there are also shorter chapters spread through the book on the arts, science and philosophy. The writing style is very good imo. Also a decent further reading list.
January 23, 2021
Peter Ackroyd has produced a flowing historical narrative that holds you in suspense, as you turn each page. I last remember being a disinterested teenager having to learn Stuart history in secondary school. Ackroyd's work on English history would have intrigued the learning experience. Superb read!
August 14, 2025
I often feel I read history in the same way I read fiction. Villains and heroes... Ackroyd surely has to be the master of both forms. This man is a rockstar. And another five stars! The year has picked up!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 269 reviews