What do you think?
Rate this book
The King's Bed: Ambition and Intimacy in the Court of Charles II
To refer to the private life of Charles II is to abuse the adjective. His personal life was anything but private. His amorous liaisons were largely conducted in royal palaces surrounded by friends, courtiers and literally hundreds of servants and soldiers. Gossip radiated throughout the kingdom.
Charles spent most of his wealth and his intellect on gaining and keeping the company of women, from the lowest sections of society such as the actress Nell Gwyn to the aristocratic Louise de Kérouaille. Some of Charles' women played their part in the affairs of state, coloring the way the nation was run.
The authors take us inside Charles' palace, where we will meet court favorites, amusing confidants, advisors jockeying for political power, mistresses past and present as well as key figures in his inner circle such as his 'pimpmasters' and his personal pox doctor.
The astonishing private life of Charles II reveals much about the man he was and why he lived and ruled as he did. The King's Bed tells the compelling story of a king ruled by his passion.
Charles spent most of his wealth and his intellect on gaining and keeping the company of women, from the lowest sections of society such as the actress Nell Gwyn to the aristocratic Louise de Kérouaille. Some of Charles' women played their part in the affairs of state, coloring the way the nation was run.
The authors take us inside Charles' palace, where we will meet court favorites, amusing confidants, advisors jockeying for political power, mistresses past and present as well as key figures in his inner circle such as his 'pimpmasters' and his personal pox doctor.
The astonishing private life of Charles II reveals much about the man he was and why he lived and ruled as he did. The King's Bed tells the compelling story of a king ruled by his passion.
353 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2015
31 people are currently reading
1184 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
February 22, 2019
While the title may attract gothic novel readers this is a serious and overdue work. The authors who had previously researched Charles II’s ruthless pursuit of participants in his father’s downfall in this book show how he was vulnerable to his mistresses who siphoned off the wealth of England and undermined its position in the known world.
While there may be a reluctance to incorporate the personal when studying history’s big events, the authors show that with Charles, there is no other way. That Charles was controlled by his passions was used by France to the loss of the British people who paid his bills.
While the book might be considered a niche approach, this is the clearest narrative I’ve read on Charles and his reign. It’s a short book with clear text. It is specific on Charles's role in the civil war, how his romancing started early, his flight from England, his life as a teenager in and out of the French court, his mother’s matchmaking attempts, his relationship with the Scots, how he tried to return and how he actually returned as king. The authors are clear on the role of Barbara Palmer and better yet how/why Louise de Kerouaille came to England; how Barbara, Louise and other mistresses bled the treasury and influenced appointments. Charles’s priorities are not at all about governing, but he does hold the crown something neither his father nor brother could do.
Through this well footnoted narrative, you can derive that if Charles II has any interest in improving England internally or its role in the world, it is subordinate to his sexual addiction. His mistresses cost him money and in negotiating financial assistance from France he accepted its strings. This meant that England was not defended against the Dutch and the Protestant-Catholic hostilities would continue, but Charles doesn’t seem to care.
There is contemporary commentary on how Charles died (natural? poison?) and his psychology. The Postscript listing Charles’s progeny is fascinating. While I knew it subliminally, it was striking to see it in black and white: it is Prince William is a descendant of Charles II through his mother , Princess Diana, who has both Barbara Palmer and Louise de Kerouaille in her family tree. If he ever ascends to the throne, William's father, Prince Charles, who is not a Charles II descendant will be Charles III. The line of descent will not fall back to the Stuarts (of course, through the mistresses, not the "legitimate" royal line) when/if Prince William takes the throne.
Recommended for anyone with interest in the Restoration and/or the Stuarts.
While there may be a reluctance to incorporate the personal when studying history’s big events, the authors show that with Charles, there is no other way. That Charles was controlled by his passions was used by France to the loss of the British people who paid his bills.
While the book might be considered a niche approach, this is the clearest narrative I’ve read on Charles and his reign. It’s a short book with clear text. It is specific on Charles's role in the civil war, how his romancing started early, his flight from England, his life as a teenager in and out of the French court, his mother’s matchmaking attempts, his relationship with the Scots, how he tried to return and how he actually returned as king. The authors are clear on the role of Barbara Palmer and better yet how/why Louise de Kerouaille came to England; how Barbara, Louise and other mistresses bled the treasury and influenced appointments. Charles’s priorities are not at all about governing, but he does hold the crown something neither his father nor brother could do.
Through this well footnoted narrative, you can derive that if Charles II has any interest in improving England internally or its role in the world, it is subordinate to his sexual addiction. His mistresses cost him money and in negotiating financial assistance from France he accepted its strings. This meant that England was not defended against the Dutch and the Protestant-Catholic hostilities would continue, but Charles doesn’t seem to care.
There is contemporary commentary on how Charles died (natural? poison?) and his psychology. The Postscript listing Charles’s progeny is fascinating. While I knew it subliminally, it was striking to see it in black and white: it is Prince William is a descendant of Charles II through his mother , Princess Diana, who has both Barbara Palmer and Louise de Kerouaille in her family tree. If he ever ascends to the throne, William's father, Prince Charles, who is not a Charles II descendant will be Charles III. The line of descent will not fall back to the Stuarts (of course, through the mistresses, not the "legitimate" royal line) when/if Prince William takes the throne.
Recommended for anyone with interest in the Restoration and/or the Stuarts.
August 26, 2016
King Charles II didn’t have much of a private life, as most of his interactions played out in front the public eye. One can compare him to a celebrity in this sense. Like most of today’s celebrities, Charles didn’t mind this constant attention and in fact: enjoyed it. Don Jordan and Michael Walsh take a look at the social side of King Charles II and how it affected him in, “The King’s Bed: Sex and Power in the Court of Charles II”.
Co-authors Don Jordan and Michael Walsh are not new to the topic of Charles II (having penned another book on the famous Stuart King); and aimed to feature the social and intimate relationships in the king’s life and how these may have affected the King’s political decisions. At least, that is assumed to be the point of “The King’s Bed” but this is very much lost in translation. To begin, Jordan and Walsh’s introduction includes twelve spelling/printing errors which certainly creates an ‘uh-oh’- reaction and is quite appalling. How did this make it onto book shelves? This elementary start leads into a piece which lacks direction and doesn’t quite fit the synopsis, instead being a summary of Charles’s life bouncing back-and-forth between private and political. For those familiar with Charles II; there is no new information here and thus “The King’s Bed” is not compelling.
Also failing to add to the work is Jordan and Walsh’s writing style. First of all, it is quite clear that chapters are alternated between the authors and were attempted to be meshed together, but, sadly are not. The voices in the text are noticeably different and the pages are rife with repetition making “The King’s Bed” clunky, tedious, and not cohesive. It is admittedly difficult to have two authors pen a work and Jordan and Walsh don’t particularly do it well. However, this may be the fault of a poor editor not bringing the manuscript together smoothly.
“The King’s Bed” also features too many speculative statements or sweeping generalizations along with some historical errors/inaccuracies which blatantly stand out to the eyes of those who regularly read about the topic, making “The King’s Bed” weak and best to be taken with a grain of salt. This absence of strong scholarly prose does, on the contrary, result in an easy-to-read piece which is great for readers new to the topic seeking an underwhelming introduction. If that was the aim of Jordan and Walsh; then they succeeded.
The concluding chapters focus more on what Jordan and Walsh set out to discuss in the first place: the private life and relationship of the King. Repetition and summarizations still run rampant but the text is more streamlined at this point.
The final chapter is quite strong in the sense that it explores Charles’s death and the theories surrounding its cause (the authors even consult a modern-day physician who examined post-mortem notes). This is the first time that Jordan and Walsh are captivating and follow an academic vein. The authors also finally wax poetic on the possible psychological effects of Charles’s relationships and even discuss this with a psychiatrist. Too bad it is too little, too late.
Jordan and Walsh wrap-up “The King’s Bed” with a post-script which interestingly links Charles II to some descendents of today, an appendix about the sexual state of life in the Seventeenth Century, a ‘cast’ of characters, notes (not annotated), and a selective bibliography. “The King’s Bed” also features a section of color plates.
Jordan and Walsh’s “The King’s Bed” is sadly a thin, choppy, repetitive, non-academic piece that doesn’t take the reader on a thrill ride nor does it educate. The work is simply an introduction for those new to the subject and even they will find that the authors miss their thesis mark. I would read from the authors again but only because I try to read everything available regarding Charles II but “The King’s Bed” can otherwise be skipped.
Co-authors Don Jordan and Michael Walsh are not new to the topic of Charles II (having penned another book on the famous Stuart King); and aimed to feature the social and intimate relationships in the king’s life and how these may have affected the King’s political decisions. At least, that is assumed to be the point of “The King’s Bed” but this is very much lost in translation. To begin, Jordan and Walsh’s introduction includes twelve spelling/printing errors which certainly creates an ‘uh-oh’- reaction and is quite appalling. How did this make it onto book shelves? This elementary start leads into a piece which lacks direction and doesn’t quite fit the synopsis, instead being a summary of Charles’s life bouncing back-and-forth between private and political. For those familiar with Charles II; there is no new information here and thus “The King’s Bed” is not compelling.
Also failing to add to the work is Jordan and Walsh’s writing style. First of all, it is quite clear that chapters are alternated between the authors and were attempted to be meshed together, but, sadly are not. The voices in the text are noticeably different and the pages are rife with repetition making “The King’s Bed” clunky, tedious, and not cohesive. It is admittedly difficult to have two authors pen a work and Jordan and Walsh don’t particularly do it well. However, this may be the fault of a poor editor not bringing the manuscript together smoothly.
“The King’s Bed” also features too many speculative statements or sweeping generalizations along with some historical errors/inaccuracies which blatantly stand out to the eyes of those who regularly read about the topic, making “The King’s Bed” weak and best to be taken with a grain of salt. This absence of strong scholarly prose does, on the contrary, result in an easy-to-read piece which is great for readers new to the topic seeking an underwhelming introduction. If that was the aim of Jordan and Walsh; then they succeeded.
The concluding chapters focus more on what Jordan and Walsh set out to discuss in the first place: the private life and relationship of the King. Repetition and summarizations still run rampant but the text is more streamlined at this point.
The final chapter is quite strong in the sense that it explores Charles’s death and the theories surrounding its cause (the authors even consult a modern-day physician who examined post-mortem notes). This is the first time that Jordan and Walsh are captivating and follow an academic vein. The authors also finally wax poetic on the possible psychological effects of Charles’s relationships and even discuss this with a psychiatrist. Too bad it is too little, too late.
Jordan and Walsh wrap-up “The King’s Bed” with a post-script which interestingly links Charles II to some descendents of today, an appendix about the sexual state of life in the Seventeenth Century, a ‘cast’ of characters, notes (not annotated), and a selective bibliography. “The King’s Bed” also features a section of color plates.
Jordan and Walsh’s “The King’s Bed” is sadly a thin, choppy, repetitive, non-academic piece that doesn’t take the reader on a thrill ride nor does it educate. The work is simply an introduction for those new to the subject and even they will find that the authors miss their thesis mark. I would read from the authors again but only because I try to read everything available regarding Charles II but “The King’s Bed” can otherwise be skipped.
February 9, 2018
I enjoyed this history/biography of the reign of Charles II of Great Britain. It was mostly told though all of the women in his life, mainly his mistresses. It does touch on Catherine of Braganza, and female family members. I do feel sorry for his Queen, having to stand by and watch the various women cycle in and out of his life, giving him the children she couldn't. It was an interesting way to look at the reign of a monarch, and it was extremely fitting for a look into the life of this monarch in particular.
September 30, 2024
We'll round this up to a solid 3.5 stars. If you want licentious, gossipy, smutty history told in a readable style, then this is your book.
November 4, 2019
What a complicated royal court the new Queen, Catherine of Braganza, found herself joining, for it was already established before her marriage to the King. It would not be wrong to say, Charles II was a rake, a predator with royal pimps and powerful mistresses, and yet, unlike the bloodthirsty Tudor kings (such as Henry VIII), he had something of a heart. Although he neglected his wife too often, when necessary, Charles II also protected her (from statesmen in the realm who hated her due to her Catholicism). What's more, the King refused to divorce his Queen because she couldn't produce an heir, as well as, recognized and took care of his 12 illegitimate children by 5 of his (I lost count!) powerful mistresses. He gave each titles, property and wealth* [funded from taxes and bribes paid by France's Louis XIV via an ultra secret treaty].
I have no idea how Queen Catherine coped with her flawed husband who lived (his princely, then kingly) life exactly as he pleased. When first married, she tried to object, but couldn't change the libertine life that characterized the Stuart court at Whitehall, so she had no choice but to accept and make the best of her humiliating circumstances.
King Charles II was a 17th century Don Draper, a cad, who you still like (in spite of yourself) ... I suppose because you see him as debauched, but not evil. After a happy start in life, followed by the beheading of his father, Charles I, he was one of the few kings to live outside the privileged walls of a castle, without money, position, or stability and among the local folk before the Restoration of the English Monarchy in 1660. As the restored King of England, Scotland and Ireland, he was generous, charming, self-depreciating, well-intentioned and had unfailingly good manners. He became a popular king in England. He had flashes of temper, or coldness, but usually could control it. Unlike some kings, he wasn't petty, nor vindictive. He loved reading unflattering criticism about himself and laughed along with it.
For all his faults, Charles II is difficult to hate. There are times the King showed genuine courage, decency and loyalty. Author Christina Croft shared the following with me: "I recall one book about her [Queen Catherine] that portrayed so beautifully her terror that she was about to be arrested for her beliefs [Catholicism]. She was led before the King and, to her amazement and that of the court, he stepped down and took her hand in a show of affection and solidarity. It was very moving to read ... that one episode enabled me to forgive all his misdemeanours!! I also like the way he threw off his jacket and got to work with all the other people trying to put out the Great Fire of London [1666]."
Charles II had a soft spot for his illegitimate children, another of his admirable traits.
Still your heart goes out to the sheltered, convent-raised Portuguese Princess who left her home to became his Queen, and you wonder what might have been ... without all the stress and nonsense of the Stuart court. Portugal sent a very classy daughter to England. She was intelligent, religious, kind and fun-loving when given a chance. She had a talent for acting, dancing and athletics. Catherine of Braganza is credited with introducing the practice of drinking tea in England. Charles II grew fond of her, and she remained devoted to him, despite the fact he was never at any time faithful to her. Not only did he have multiple courtesans and casual flings, his serious mistresses along with their bastard children, were flaunted within his court, as well as, openly in public. His philandering brought sadness and isolation into her life.
Queen Catherine had 4 miscarriages and stillborn children. Nobody can really know why she couldn't carry her babies to term, but as it turns out, the Queen was given quinine by 17th century doctors, which is known to cause miscarriages. Also the stress of having powerful wenches and their bastards in her face; the worry of being tossed out by divorce; and having little say in her own court, couldn't have helped matters in the least. Then there were the sexual transmitted diseases, including syphilis the King and his French mistress, Louise deKèrouaille (who caught "the pox" from him), were known to have been treated for in 1674. Miraculously the Queen is not known to have contracted the disease.
But could she have caught other viruses effecting childbearing? We will never know ... but perhaps Charles II's hedonism was a factor in his own lack of a legitimate heir. He alone was responsible for his lubricious court. Queen Catherine remained a treasure ... her integrity and benevolence in tact. It is speculated that the King never divorced his Queen partially out of guilt.
The book, The Kings Bed, depicts Charles II as a clever and shrewd King, but mentions that some historians reason, he was "a man who never truly grew up" ... perhaps "his problems steamed from the violent death of his father and the subsequent years of his enforced exile." The King's "contemporaries agreed, his time in France [in the court of his cousin Louis XIV] corrupted him." Modern psychiatrist Dr. Paul Harlow thinks Charles suffered from "arrested emotional development stuck irredeemably in adolescence," listing several symptoms, including his "avoidance of emotional mature relationships and the need for endless female couplings ... In his formative years he lost the close contact of a mature male figure, leading him to 'Don Juan syndrome,' a condition in which a man fails to take charge of his life in an adult, mature way." Also toss in the factor: As absolute ruler, Charles received a pass from the expectation of following normal, social behavior. Accepting moral responsibility for his pleasure dome lifestyle "didn't come into play."
According to the same book, Charles isn't viewed as a psychopath as "he enjoyed life too much and engaged in it too well to be a psychopath." Moreover the authors observe: "Whatever his failings ... Charles carried himself well enough throughout his life, usually with good humor and with a good word for the humblest of his subjects, though he cared little about them. ... Generally speaking, as long as he got his way, he was congeniality itself."
Furthermore, his erotic and parasitic behavior cut the monarchy down to size. For his subjects it "broke the spell" of the idea of divine monarchy. Majesty -- or ''greatness of God" was forever after seen as less majestic and more human.
On Queen Catherine's final visit to her husband's deathbed in 1685, she was overcome with grief and tears. The Queen half-fainted in response to his suffering, as well as, his tenderness towards her and had to be carried back to her own rooms. She sent back a note asking Charles to forgive her if she had offended him. To which the dying King replied, "Poor woman, she begs my pardon! I beg hers with all my heart."
Here again you wonder what might have been. The actor, Jon Hamm who played and knew Don Draper so well, always maintained that while his character was distinguished in his professional life, he was a coward in his private life. Was Charles II a coward also?
A question scholars always ask is: What of his early promise went unfulfilled, due to his duplicity and need of a huge purse?
If Charles had put his energy in what should have been his most important intimate relationship, his marriage (and cared more about statesmanship) in lieu of a pleasure-seeking court, what an influential team the outwardly Protestant King and his capable Catholic Queen might have been in England at a time of fierce religious intolerance. Perhaps, just perhaps the Stuarts would be remembered as the dynasty that brought the country back together ... and is it possible the Stuarts would still be sitting on the throne today? We can only wonder.
As head of the Church of England, King Charles II was a pragmatist. In private, he sympathized with the religion so many of the people around him (his Queen, brother, James, his courtesans) followed. On his deathbed he willingly converted to Catholicism. He died bravely, remaining congenial to the end. The cause of death was probably a stroke ... but possibly accidental mercury poisoning from experiments in his windowless lab at Whitehall.
Later in life ... years after the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary (1688), the widowed Catherine of Braganza returned to Portugal to successfully act as regent for her brother, Peter II ... where she died in 1705.👑
A week after finishing the book, I'm still haunted by everything Queen Catherine had to endure by marrying such an out-in-the-open, licentious King. She deserved better.
*Charles gave his mistresses the rights to the proceeds from certain government taxes collected, or the King's pardons. For example Louise deKèrouaille got the money from prisoners who paid bribes to be pardoned - a practice at the time. Many were in jail because they couldn't pay their debts. If they couldn't pay her, she then sold the prisoners into indentured servitude for $3 - $12 a head, and they were shipped off to Virginia as slaves effectively, making her and her descendants rich.
- At times mistresses, Barbara Villiers and Louise deKèrouaille, were able to crush politicians who dared to criticize their influence on the King, then were given their properties (now lost to the heirs of the ousted men). They broke the property up and sold it increasing their own wealth. Barbara Villiers "borrowed" jewelry from the Crown, but in her hands, the pieces became gifts. Charles II did nothing, so Queen Catherine was powerless.
- Interesting fact: Prince William will be the 1st direct descendant ever of Charles II -- 350 years later -- to sit on the British throne. His mother, Diana Princess of Wales was a direct descendant of 2 rival mistresses: Barbara Villiers and Louise deKèrouaille. Camilia, Duchess of Cornwall and Sarah, Duchess of York are also direct descendents of Charles II through Louise deKèrouaille. It's one big happy illegitimate family! But we're cool with Prince William and company. Heaven forbid if we never let bygones be bygones and had to atone for all our ancestors. Hopefully we can look at history without judging innocent people who try to live meaningful lives.
https://thesavvvyshopper.blogspot.com....
I have no idea how Queen Catherine coped with her flawed husband who lived (his princely, then kingly) life exactly as he pleased. When first married, she tried to object, but couldn't change the libertine life that characterized the Stuart court at Whitehall, so she had no choice but to accept and make the best of her humiliating circumstances.
King Charles II was a 17th century Don Draper, a cad, who you still like (in spite of yourself) ... I suppose because you see him as debauched, but not evil. After a happy start in life, followed by the beheading of his father, Charles I, he was one of the few kings to live outside the privileged walls of a castle, without money, position, or stability and among the local folk before the Restoration of the English Monarchy in 1660. As the restored King of England, Scotland and Ireland, he was generous, charming, self-depreciating, well-intentioned and had unfailingly good manners. He became a popular king in England. He had flashes of temper, or coldness, but usually could control it. Unlike some kings, he wasn't petty, nor vindictive. He loved reading unflattering criticism about himself and laughed along with it.
For all his faults, Charles II is difficult to hate. There are times the King showed genuine courage, decency and loyalty. Author Christina Croft shared the following with me: "I recall one book about her [Queen Catherine] that portrayed so beautifully her terror that she was about to be arrested for her beliefs [Catholicism]. She was led before the King and, to her amazement and that of the court, he stepped down and took her hand in a show of affection and solidarity. It was very moving to read ... that one episode enabled me to forgive all his misdemeanours!! I also like the way he threw off his jacket and got to work with all the other people trying to put out the Great Fire of London [1666]."
Charles II had a soft spot for his illegitimate children, another of his admirable traits.
Still your heart goes out to the sheltered, convent-raised Portuguese Princess who left her home to became his Queen, and you wonder what might have been ... without all the stress and nonsense of the Stuart court. Portugal sent a very classy daughter to England. She was intelligent, religious, kind and fun-loving when given a chance. She had a talent for acting, dancing and athletics. Catherine of Braganza is credited with introducing the practice of drinking tea in England. Charles II grew fond of her, and she remained devoted to him, despite the fact he was never at any time faithful to her. Not only did he have multiple courtesans and casual flings, his serious mistresses along with their bastard children, were flaunted within his court, as well as, openly in public. His philandering brought sadness and isolation into her life.
Queen Catherine had 4 miscarriages and stillborn children. Nobody can really know why she couldn't carry her babies to term, but as it turns out, the Queen was given quinine by 17th century doctors, which is known to cause miscarriages. Also the stress of having powerful wenches and their bastards in her face; the worry of being tossed out by divorce; and having little say in her own court, couldn't have helped matters in the least. Then there were the sexual transmitted diseases, including syphilis the King and his French mistress, Louise deKèrouaille (who caught "the pox" from him), were known to have been treated for in 1674. Miraculously the Queen is not known to have contracted the disease.
But could she have caught other viruses effecting childbearing? We will never know ... but perhaps Charles II's hedonism was a factor in his own lack of a legitimate heir. He alone was responsible for his lubricious court. Queen Catherine remained a treasure ... her integrity and benevolence in tact. It is speculated that the King never divorced his Queen partially out of guilt.
The book, The Kings Bed, depicts Charles II as a clever and shrewd King, but mentions that some historians reason, he was "a man who never truly grew up" ... perhaps "his problems steamed from the violent death of his father and the subsequent years of his enforced exile." The King's "contemporaries agreed, his time in France [in the court of his cousin Louis XIV] corrupted him." Modern psychiatrist Dr. Paul Harlow thinks Charles suffered from "arrested emotional development stuck irredeemably in adolescence," listing several symptoms, including his "avoidance of emotional mature relationships and the need for endless female couplings ... In his formative years he lost the close contact of a mature male figure, leading him to 'Don Juan syndrome,' a condition in which a man fails to take charge of his life in an adult, mature way." Also toss in the factor: As absolute ruler, Charles received a pass from the expectation of following normal, social behavior. Accepting moral responsibility for his pleasure dome lifestyle "didn't come into play."
According to the same book, Charles isn't viewed as a psychopath as "he enjoyed life too much and engaged in it too well to be a psychopath." Moreover the authors observe: "Whatever his failings ... Charles carried himself well enough throughout his life, usually with good humor and with a good word for the humblest of his subjects, though he cared little about them. ... Generally speaking, as long as he got his way, he was congeniality itself."
Furthermore, his erotic and parasitic behavior cut the monarchy down to size. For his subjects it "broke the spell" of the idea of divine monarchy. Majesty -- or ''greatness of God" was forever after seen as less majestic and more human.
On Queen Catherine's final visit to her husband's deathbed in 1685, she was overcome with grief and tears. The Queen half-fainted in response to his suffering, as well as, his tenderness towards her and had to be carried back to her own rooms. She sent back a note asking Charles to forgive her if she had offended him. To which the dying King replied, "Poor woman, she begs my pardon! I beg hers with all my heart."
Here again you wonder what might have been. The actor, Jon Hamm who played and knew Don Draper so well, always maintained that while his character was distinguished in his professional life, he was a coward in his private life. Was Charles II a coward also?
A question scholars always ask is: What of his early promise went unfulfilled, due to his duplicity and need of a huge purse?
If Charles had put his energy in what should have been his most important intimate relationship, his marriage (and cared more about statesmanship) in lieu of a pleasure-seeking court, what an influential team the outwardly Protestant King and his capable Catholic Queen might have been in England at a time of fierce religious intolerance. Perhaps, just perhaps the Stuarts would be remembered as the dynasty that brought the country back together ... and is it possible the Stuarts would still be sitting on the throne today? We can only wonder.
As head of the Church of England, King Charles II was a pragmatist. In private, he sympathized with the religion so many of the people around him (his Queen, brother, James, his courtesans) followed. On his deathbed he willingly converted to Catholicism. He died bravely, remaining congenial to the end. The cause of death was probably a stroke ... but possibly accidental mercury poisoning from experiments in his windowless lab at Whitehall.
Later in life ... years after the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary (1688), the widowed Catherine of Braganza returned to Portugal to successfully act as regent for her brother, Peter II ... where she died in 1705.👑
A week after finishing the book, I'm still haunted by everything Queen Catherine had to endure by marrying such an out-in-the-open, licentious King. She deserved better.
*Charles gave his mistresses the rights to the proceeds from certain government taxes collected, or the King's pardons. For example Louise deKèrouaille got the money from prisoners who paid bribes to be pardoned - a practice at the time. Many were in jail because they couldn't pay their debts. If they couldn't pay her, she then sold the prisoners into indentured servitude for $3 - $12 a head, and they were shipped off to Virginia as slaves effectively, making her and her descendants rich.
- At times mistresses, Barbara Villiers and Louise deKèrouaille, were able to crush politicians who dared to criticize their influence on the King, then were given their properties (now lost to the heirs of the ousted men). They broke the property up and sold it increasing their own wealth. Barbara Villiers "borrowed" jewelry from the Crown, but in her hands, the pieces became gifts. Charles II did nothing, so Queen Catherine was powerless.
- Interesting fact: Prince William will be the 1st direct descendant ever of Charles II -- 350 years later -- to sit on the British throne. His mother, Diana Princess of Wales was a direct descendant of 2 rival mistresses: Barbara Villiers and Louise deKèrouaille. Camilia, Duchess of Cornwall and Sarah, Duchess of York are also direct descendents of Charles II through Louise deKèrouaille. It's one big happy illegitimate family! But we're cool with Prince William and company. Heaven forbid if we never let bygones be bygones and had to atone for all our ancestors. Hopefully we can look at history without judging innocent people who try to live meaningful lives.
https://thesavvvyshopper.blogspot.com....
August 11, 2021
Well that was a fun little jaunt! My goodness, not that I have ever needed a reason to think hereditary monarchies were absolute bullshit, but man, Charles II was a lousy ass king. I don't want to sound sex negative, because I am a) extremely sex positive and b) a bit of a slut myself, but DAMN, Chucky, could you maybe not bankrupt your country and betray it to the French because you kept bailing out your truly horrendous hot mistresses? I mean, I can't really blame Barbara or Eloise, and definitely not Nell, because in 17th century England (or really anytime in Western culture) girlfriend has gotta get what is hers, and I get that the vage is a good way to do it. Still wouldn't be friends with Barbara. She seemed like a grumpy bully. Also none of them should have been in a decisionmaking role. Not at one. Except for Catherine, the Queen. And maybe Nell. They were cool
Wonderfully, sexily read by Steve West. Some of the language and descriptors used were a bit out of date, in the sense that the authors cracked jokes at the expense of people's appearances in a way that felt needlessly cruel. Probably some fatphobia and a touch of that classic British homophilia/homophobia double-edged sword that you get from a bunch of young men who went to private schools.
Wonderfully, sexily read by Steve West. Some of the language and descriptors used were a bit out of date, in the sense that the authors cracked jokes at the expense of people's appearances in a way that felt needlessly cruel. Probably some fatphobia and a touch of that classic British homophilia/homophobia double-edged sword that you get from a bunch of young men who went to private schools.
February 13, 2017
ACTUALLY GOOD ROYAL NON-FICTION!!!!!!
It's so hard to find, and it's so delicious when you do. So much royal non-fiction is infected with absurd nostalgia. Or it's unable to find a middle ground between hagiography and character assassination. Or it's unbearably small-minded, ignoring any semblance of a bigger picture in favor of endless details about what someone ate for breakfast.
But this was FUN, and it was well-researched and level-headed to boot. Though the topic is wonderfully sensational, the authors take it seriously. Jordan and Walsh's account of the lives of Charles II and his mistresses and of life in the Restoration court is informative and entertaining. But what's more impressive is that they completely convinced me of the historical importance of the "Sexual Revolution of the 1660s," when I was more than a little skeptical. But their case is very compelling. It reminded me that royal history doesn't always have to be the guilty pleasure of a young woman with a weakness for pretty clothes and historical gossip. Sometimes it's actually really important and fascinating.
It's so hard to find, and it's so delicious when you do. So much royal non-fiction is infected with absurd nostalgia. Or it's unable to find a middle ground between hagiography and character assassination. Or it's unbearably small-minded, ignoring any semblance of a bigger picture in favor of endless details about what someone ate for breakfast.
But this was FUN, and it was well-researched and level-headed to boot. Though the topic is wonderfully sensational, the authors take it seriously. Jordan and Walsh's account of the lives of Charles II and his mistresses and of life in the Restoration court is informative and entertaining. But what's more impressive is that they completely convinced me of the historical importance of the "Sexual Revolution of the 1660s," when I was more than a little skeptical. But their case is very compelling. It reminded me that royal history doesn't always have to be the guilty pleasure of a young woman with a weakness for pretty clothes and historical gossip. Sometimes it's actually really important and fascinating.
April 23, 2019
Prior to reading this book I didn't know that much about King Charles II - I knew he had been invited back to become king of Britain after Cromwell died. I knew that he liked to party and he had a lot of mistresses. This book has been a fascinating insight into the party/mistress side of his life, in particular, how much sway his mistresses had over the affairs of state. His mistresses were able to ensure that their favorites were appointed to important governmental posts, that their out-of-wedlock children by Charles II were granted titles and income, as well as push the agenda of a foreign monarch.
From this book I definitely got the impression that Charles II was someone who enjoyed the trappings of kingship (nice clothes, estates, mistresses galore, loads of money) without actually enjoying the boring work part of being king.
But what is interesting is that the court of Charles II was so licentious, that it helped push forward a kind of sexual revolution, which extended beyond the court.
Highly recommend this book for folks interested in history, or just the behind the scenes dynamic of royalty.
From this book I definitely got the impression that Charles II was someone who enjoyed the trappings of kingship (nice clothes, estates, mistresses galore, loads of money) without actually enjoying the boring work part of being king.
But what is interesting is that the court of Charles II was so licentious, that it helped push forward a kind of sexual revolution, which extended beyond the court.
Highly recommend this book for folks interested in history, or just the behind the scenes dynamic of royalty.
June 25, 2021
Sadly by covering his social life this book provides a better explanation of Charles II's actions than many political histories I've read. I especially enjoyed the section on the years in exile because they are all too often glossed over. All that being said it did feel like reading a 400 year old People Magazine and often found my attention wondering.
August 17, 2016
Private lives in 17th century Britain at the court of James II. Excellent research, excellently written, excellently read.
August 30, 2016
1.5 stars. It was SUCH a struggle to finish this audiobook. The narrator was fine, but the book itself just wasn't for me.
November 30, 2016
Fast paced and very readable. Not too heavy on details.
September 28, 2017
An interesting look at the reign of Charles II through his mistresses. Not particularly memorable, but interesting.
January 21, 2021
Sounds like a romance novel, but it's history told in a different way--examining the roles of powerful women in the life of Charles II of England. Important takeaways for me: As a resident of the northern New England's seacoast, an area settled in the early 1630s by the English, I can see how the reign of Charles II impacted settlement and culture of the eastern seacoast, events leading to the American Revolution, and development of the American character.
During Charles II's reign, he sent many thousands of his enemies to the colonies. Scots prisoners were resettled by the thousands in northern New England. The Scots had rebelled, refusing to support the Anglican church with taxes. Even today, this area is filled with libertarian anti-taxers, and was a region which supported the American Revolution with great enthusiasm.
English prisons, filled with religious dissenters and noble families who rebelled against Charles' rule were emptied and sent to southern plantations as indentured servants--virtual slavery. When these servants were released or escaped, they settled in the piedmont and hill country of the southern states. Again, the anger and sense of injustice these people carry with them to this day is legend. And the legends that old timers would tell, that great-great-great-granddaddy was and English earl or lord...may very well be true, after all. To top it off, the money from the sale of these prisoners went directly into the purse of Barbara Palmer--the king's powerful mistress.
The excessively high tariffs and taxes that colonists were forced to pay for imported English goods--cloth, table ware, nails, tools, etc.--forced colonists to become far more resourceful. They built looms and spinning wheels, and made their own cloth and clothing. They constructed mills to make nails, they made their own tools with recycled metal in blacksmith shops. They made their own ceramics and wooden dishes. They had no choice--British goods and foods--where outrageously expensive, and they would have lived in bare houses, naked, had they simply purchased everything, as was expected by the British. Those high tariffs went into Charles II's treasury, to pay for his wars and whores. The lack of control over this ridiculous monarch led not only to the American Revolution, but the development of the American do-it-yourself attitude, still profoundly strong in our character. When the pandemic and lock down hit Americans, they started to bake their own bread, make jellies and jams, do their own repairs on everything in the house. YouTube is filled with Americans doing their own plumbing, car repairs, sewing, etc. This started early, when we were living in the extreme weather of the colonies, freezing and starving because Charles II had to buy a mansion for his latest mistress.
I'm not making this up--I was watching a demonstration of colonial fabric weaving when the woman operating the loom explained this to those of us in her audience. Sure, she said, there was plenty of good fabric being made in England at the time, but once it landed on the docks of Boston or anywhere else in the colonies, it cost far more than what it would have in England itself. In fact, colonists weren't even permitted to make their own goods! They were required by law to purchase the English goods! And the English were surprised at the Tea Party, the Rebellion.
Finally, the religious character of America was very much shaped by what was occurring in Charles II's England. The Dissenters--Protestants who wanted to break with the Anglican church--were both a political force and persecuted by Charles. These people found a home in the colonies, and we've been an incredibly diverse and rather overtly religious nation since colonial times. We tend to focus on the Puritans, but there were many groups.
The puritanical nature of religion at that time also stems from Charles II's financial, impoverishing excesses, as well as the endemic syphilis infecting the nobility and the prostitutes and their customers. Chastity was the best preventive medicine, as it is today. Whether we like it or not.
During Charles II's reign, he sent many thousands of his enemies to the colonies. Scots prisoners were resettled by the thousands in northern New England. The Scots had rebelled, refusing to support the Anglican church with taxes. Even today, this area is filled with libertarian anti-taxers, and was a region which supported the American Revolution with great enthusiasm.
English prisons, filled with religious dissenters and noble families who rebelled against Charles' rule were emptied and sent to southern plantations as indentured servants--virtual slavery. When these servants were released or escaped, they settled in the piedmont and hill country of the southern states. Again, the anger and sense of injustice these people carry with them to this day is legend. And the legends that old timers would tell, that great-great-great-granddaddy was and English earl or lord...may very well be true, after all. To top it off, the money from the sale of these prisoners went directly into the purse of Barbara Palmer--the king's powerful mistress.
The excessively high tariffs and taxes that colonists were forced to pay for imported English goods--cloth, table ware, nails, tools, etc.--forced colonists to become far more resourceful. They built looms and spinning wheels, and made their own cloth and clothing. They constructed mills to make nails, they made their own tools with recycled metal in blacksmith shops. They made their own ceramics and wooden dishes. They had no choice--British goods and foods--where outrageously expensive, and they would have lived in bare houses, naked, had they simply purchased everything, as was expected by the British. Those high tariffs went into Charles II's treasury, to pay for his wars and whores. The lack of control over this ridiculous monarch led not only to the American Revolution, but the development of the American do-it-yourself attitude, still profoundly strong in our character. When the pandemic and lock down hit Americans, they started to bake their own bread, make jellies and jams, do their own repairs on everything in the house. YouTube is filled with Americans doing their own plumbing, car repairs, sewing, etc. This started early, when we were living in the extreme weather of the colonies, freezing and starving because Charles II had to buy a mansion for his latest mistress.
I'm not making this up--I was watching a demonstration of colonial fabric weaving when the woman operating the loom explained this to those of us in her audience. Sure, she said, there was plenty of good fabric being made in England at the time, but once it landed on the docks of Boston or anywhere else in the colonies, it cost far more than what it would have in England itself. In fact, colonists weren't even permitted to make their own goods! They were required by law to purchase the English goods! And the English were surprised at the Tea Party, the Rebellion.
Finally, the religious character of America was very much shaped by what was occurring in Charles II's England. The Dissenters--Protestants who wanted to break with the Anglican church--were both a political force and persecuted by Charles. These people found a home in the colonies, and we've been an incredibly diverse and rather overtly religious nation since colonial times. We tend to focus on the Puritans, but there were many groups.
The puritanical nature of religion at that time also stems from Charles II's financial, impoverishing excesses, as well as the endemic syphilis infecting the nobility and the prostitutes and their customers. Chastity was the best preventive medicine, as it is today. Whether we like it or not.
October 8, 2023
King Charles II was known as the "Merry Monarch" in due to upon being crowned, made his life in living with entertainment. He was also known for his love of women, having spawned at least 16 illegitimate children from numerous mistresses, while his Queen, Catherine of Braganza, was unable to sire an heir for the throne. Don Jordan & Michael Walsh seeks to get an intimate look on life in Charles II's court during the Restoration era and specifically, the mistresses he took to bed throughout his reign. Starting from his teenage years during the English Civil Wars to his death in 1685, the authors described not only his life, but also the women who would play a role in his philandering ways. Most of them were looked with scorns and see anything less than a whore, these women are now reevaluated as ambitious seekers who bed the Merry Monarch to fulfill their own goals. And each of them had different ways of retaining the King's affection and to the headaches of his advisors.
Having somewhat novice knowledge about King Charles II, I do think I learned more about his personality and his political skills from reading this. Highly researched and rich in details, the duo authors spill as much as they can about the Stuart king and his mistresses. It is a life of adventure, pleasure, and political motives, that one would get a sense of much melodrama to have occurred during this time period in English history. Aside from that, the authors pointed how during Charles II's rule, sex became more of a public conversation in both due to his merry-making and the spread of STDs. One could say the sexual revolution of the 60s actually started back 300 years ago, in a sense. Very much Charles is presented much more human here, with both his charisma and flaws that played in how his rulership impacted the country. Similarly, much of the ladies are revealed much more in the process as well. The chapters are relatively short, making it easy to read through, and done in chronological order. Although, there are certain spots that are a little dull, but those are few in-between. I thoroughly enjoyed the postscript about Charles' legacy (including genetics) and what sex was like in the 17th century.
All around, it is not just a history account of a king's philandering ways, but also a rich account of what 17th century life was like in England during a time of new renovations. I for one, recommend.
Having somewhat novice knowledge about King Charles II, I do think I learned more about his personality and his political skills from reading this. Highly researched and rich in details, the duo authors spill as much as they can about the Stuart king and his mistresses. It is a life of adventure, pleasure, and political motives, that one would get a sense of much melodrama to have occurred during this time period in English history. Aside from that, the authors pointed how during Charles II's rule, sex became more of a public conversation in both due to his merry-making and the spread of STDs. One could say the sexual revolution of the 60s actually started back 300 years ago, in a sense. Very much Charles is presented much more human here, with both his charisma and flaws that played in how his rulership impacted the country. Similarly, much of the ladies are revealed much more in the process as well. The chapters are relatively short, making it easy to read through, and done in chronological order. Although, there are certain spots that are a little dull, but those are few in-between. I thoroughly enjoyed the postscript about Charles' legacy (including genetics) and what sex was like in the 17th century.
All around, it is not just a history account of a king's philandering ways, but also a rich account of what 17th century life was like in England during a time of new renovations. I for one, recommend.
April 28, 2021
“The King’s Bed: Sex and Power in the Court of Charles II” by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Absolute gold. 😚👌🏼
“The King’s Bed” recounts the life and reign of Charles II through the lives of his mistresses and the power these women held in his court.
What interested me the most is what Jordan and Walsh describe as a “sexual revolution” between the 1660s and 1680s. I knew that Charles II was notorious for being a Hoe, but I never realized that EVERYONE in this period was a Hoe. So much so that Charles’s own daughter with his mistress Barbara Villiers, had an affair with one of Charles’s later mistresses AND she had an affair with her mother’s lover AS WELL.
This audiobook was filled with gems of political intrigue, counter reformation and sexual drama. SO MUCH DRAMA. All because a man could not give a shit about anything.
There are several quotes from this book that I will continue to use out of context such as:
“Dear people, be civil. I am the Protestant whore.” —Nell Gwyn
“I forgive you for you do it for your bread!” —Charles II
If you want a good time, just listen to this free audiobook on Audible.
Absolute gold. 😚👌🏼
“The King’s Bed” recounts the life and reign of Charles II through the lives of his mistresses and the power these women held in his court.
What interested me the most is what Jordan and Walsh describe as a “sexual revolution” between the 1660s and 1680s. I knew that Charles II was notorious for being a Hoe, but I never realized that EVERYONE in this period was a Hoe. So much so that Charles’s own daughter with his mistress Barbara Villiers, had an affair with one of Charles’s later mistresses AND she had an affair with her mother’s lover AS WELL.
This audiobook was filled with gems of political intrigue, counter reformation and sexual drama. SO MUCH DRAMA. All because a man could not give a shit about anything.
There are several quotes from this book that I will continue to use out of context such as:
“Dear people, be civil. I am the Protestant whore.” —Nell Gwyn
“I forgive you for you do it for your bread!” —Charles II
If you want a good time, just listen to this free audiobook on Audible.
April 26, 2024
Charles II clearly had a 'type' he favored: brunettes with large languid eyes, full lips, and luscious curves. He married one, but the real narrative follows his most famous mistresses. It all begins with Lucy Walter who deflowered him followed by Jane Lane who helped him escape the Roundheads. Then Lady Castlemaine/Barbara Villiers dominated him so much that she was in the palace when his Queen arrived from Portugal. Next he fell for Frances Stuart who managed to keep him at bay for three years only surrenduring to him under her own terms. Lower class women like Moll Davis and Nelly Gwyn delighted him with their audacity, but they all pale before Louise de Kerouaille. Louise managed to work both the Sun King and Charles II by infiltrating the latter's court. Charles always did well by his acknowledged progeny, granting his first born son of Lucy Walter the title of Duke of Monmouth, and bestowing similar favors on later bastards. So, being cuckolded by the King could pay handsomly though never as handsomly as selling access to France would.
September 12, 2017
I won this book through GoodReads First Reads giveaways.
King Charles II liked sex of that there is no doubt and this book goes into detail on Charles' numerous affairs and his long list of progeny. At times portrayed as a sad sack, being taken advantage of by his numerous mistresses and courtiers
The books is termed a historical work but reads more like a sordid novel. Definitely not written in a very academic manner. But, the author does make it an easy read so if you want to know more about Charles II and his love life, this is a good read for you.
King Charles II liked sex of that there is no doubt and this book goes into detail on Charles' numerous affairs and his long list of progeny. At times portrayed as a sad sack, being taken advantage of by his numerous mistresses and courtiers
The books is termed a historical work but reads more like a sordid novel. Definitely not written in a very academic manner. But, the author does make it an easy read so if you want to know more about Charles II and his love life, this is a good read for you.
August 26, 2022
I’ve read many books about the Royal’s of the 15 through 17th centuries. And found this to reveal so many things that I thought would have happened in the personal lives of the rich and powerful, but never were revealed before reading this book about King Charles II. The book tells the factual story very well, which is supported by allot of research by the authors.
I enjoyed the way the story was told, and also keeping with the facts. The beginning paragraph points out the sexual Revolution did start in the “60’s”, the 1660’s. King Charles II was a leader in this revolution.
I enjoyed the way the story was told, and also keeping with the facts. The beginning paragraph points out the sexual Revolution did start in the “60’s”, the 1660’s. King Charles II was a leader in this revolution.
October 30, 2025
This was kind of a "popular" history book for the general reader, so the bar was pretty low. I have always enjoyed Restoration Drama so it was of interest to me to learn a bit about the "merry monarch" of that period. At the end, sex and disease aside, with some understanding of his unfortunate upbringing, still results in the takeaway being that these were largely selfish and self-absorbed people, more concerned with merkins and their dilemnas with false noses than doing anything helpful for the people (Great Fire of London excepted).
May 20, 2024
A decent overview of CHarles II reign, but I was hoping for more of the perspective of the ladies involved. While they are included and we don't have as much record for them, from the style of writing it felt like more of a side note more times than not. half was more of the world and conflict details. While you can't separate those things, of course, it nearly felt like two separate novels at times rather than one that really carried the theme in a balanced manner.
May 21, 2018
Another winner from Jordan and Walsh! History that reads like historical fiction -- although in the case of Charles II's sex life, truth is stranger than fiction. My only complaint, and it's not the fault of the authors, is that after a while it gets a little difficult to differentiate between Charles' paramours.
October 6, 2019
Once restored to the throne in 1660, Charles II led a rollicking and bawdy life of sex, sex, more sex and parties while all around him swirled gossip, plots and intrigue. In this interesting and very readable history of his ‘private’ life we learn that nothing much has changed in the world since the 1600s.
June 14, 2020
Reads like a tabloid newspaper with an emphasis on gossip and scandal. Men are rakes, women are bewitching and King Charles II is licentious and libidinous etc. Repetitive in places, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone as an introduction to the monarch. Having said that, if you are in the right frame of mind, it is enjoyable.
February 21, 2021
I found it quite hard to read given all the facts and names and political references, but that's just me and no reflection on the book, I'm not one to give up on a book, so I ploughed on and I have learnt a lot about bout king Charles 2nd, I'm hoping that when lockdown is finished and we get back to the pub quiz there might be some questions on him 🤞🏼
May 2, 2021
I could not put this book down. This saucy book is laced with eye-opening material. This work is an intriguing account of a hedonistic king who had numerous affairs that resulted in twelve illegitimate children. The King's Bed is filled with endless esoteric information on a being who used his power and wealth to maintain his licentious lifestyle. This is a MUST READ!
December 28, 2021
Plenty of sex but little love. A King dominated by sexual desire no matter who it may be. Plenty of contradictions as he managed to rule without Parliament for years at a time backed by French money. A time when Britain was effectively ruled by the French & invaded by the Dutch. The extremes of Cromwellian austerity & royal excess.
August 8, 2017
This book really could have benefited from a decent editor. There are constant glaring errors and repetitions, which detracted from the content. You can definitely tell that the authors are not trained historians.
September 30, 2017
A fun book about a truly crazy bit of history. I now need a bunch of biographies and TV shows featuring people like Hortense Mancini and the Duke of Buckingham, and frankly, Charles himself, especially the nutty early years, escaping England and living in exile.
June 22, 2022
An interesting read. We all know Charles got around, it's interesting to read just how much he was able to be manipulated. And really didn't seem to care that he was. The last bit, about the modern day decedents was very interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews