What do you think?
Rate this book
Charles I (Penguin Monarchs): An Abbreviated Life
The tragedy of Charles I dominates one of the most strange and painful periods in British history as the whole island tore itself apart over a deadly, entangled series of religious and political disputes. In Mark Kishlansky's brilliant account it is never in doubt that Charles created his own catastrophe, but he was nonetheless opposed by men with far fewer scruples and less consistency who for often quite contradictory reasons conspired to destroy him. This is a remarkable portrait of one of the most talented, thoughtful, loyal, moral, artistically alert and yet, somehow, disastrous of all this country's rulers.
ebook
First published December 4, 2014
31 people are currently reading
294 people want to read
About the author
Mark A. Kishlansky
182 books11 followersMark Alan Kishlansky (1948-2015) was a historian of seventeenth-century British politics. He was the Frank Baird, Jr. Professor of History at Harvard University.
He completed his undergraduate degree at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1970 and proceeded to graduate study under David Underdown at Brown University, receiving his M.A. in 1972 and his Ph. D. in 1977. From 1975 to 1991 he taught at the University of Chicago, successively as instructor and professor. From 1990 to 1991 he was a member of the Committee on Social Thought. He was a visiting professor at Northwestern University in 1983 and was the Mellon Visiting Professor in the Humanities and Social Sciences at the California Institute of Technology in 1990-1991. In 1991 he became a professor at Harvard University and from 1998 to 2001 served as Associate Dean of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. He was editor of the Journal of British Studies from 1984 to 1991 and editor-in-chief of History Compass from 2003 to 2009
He completed his undergraduate degree at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1970 and proceeded to graduate study under David Underdown at Brown University, receiving his M.A. in 1972 and his Ph. D. in 1977. From 1975 to 1991 he taught at the University of Chicago, successively as instructor and professor. From 1990 to 1991 he was a member of the Committee on Social Thought. He was a visiting professor at Northwestern University in 1983 and was the Mellon Visiting Professor in the Humanities and Social Sciences at the California Institute of Technology in 1990-1991. In 1991 he became a professor at Harvard University and from 1998 to 2001 served as Associate Dean of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. He was editor of the Journal of British Studies from 1984 to 1991 and editor-in-chief of History Compass from 2003 to 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
Read
September 20, 2020Mark Kishlansky gives us a strong opening statement "Charles I is the most despised monarch in Britain's historical memory. Considering that among his predecessors were murderers, rapists, psychotics and the mentally challenged, this is no small distinction" (p.ix). Inevitably nothing else can measure up to that opening.
His is a bit of an odd book, admittedly it is a very short book, and so there is a limit to what one can discuss even when considering a King who was cut short at an age when only his beard had gone grey, even so Kishlansky interprets his remit as rehabilitating that man of blood in the context of writing a slightly breathless (105 page) political biography, the problem with this is that Charles's decisions can look weird and questionable even in a favourable account of his abbreviated life, his departure from London at the beginning of the English Civil War is passed over with an airy hand wave even though Kishlansky has told us that ten percent of the population lived in London and that then as now it was the Legal, Commercial, and Economic heart of Britain but also then had the largest stock of weapons and munitions in the country, stepping away from the centre of power in the middle of a power struggle with Parliament - I find myself at a loss for words, the author as I say passes over this curious decision.
On the whole he succeeds in giving a sense of a 'man more sinned against than sinning' as his theatrical predecessor King Lear said, Charles was not responsible for the religious tensions in the realm that he created, nor did the financial situation begin with him, nor did he create subjects who were eager for aggressive military action and unwilling to pay a penny for it. On the other hand, he was the king, the one who had the power to manipulate parliamentary elections, the one who made the senior appointments, who initiated policy, who was at the centre of the political and legal system, I was reminded of Machiavelli dividing Princes into three types, those who are great and stable geniuses, those who know that they are not and so need to choose careful and competent officials and advisors, and those who feel the need to tell people that they are great and stable geniuses and can't be left safely on their own in a room. And perhaps Charles was let down by his virtues, perhaps he was loyal to people who were just not up to the job, I don't know, but in a political biography even the most sympathetic writer can not get round the fact that Charles was decapitated by his own subjects.
Considering Charles' interest in the Arts, a field in which he was as a collector perhaps the greatest of all British monarchs, it is a pity that Kishlansky did not broaden the book out to more than a political biography. Still reading about conflict between England, Scotland, and Ireland, tensions over religious identity, conflict in the courts over the prerogative powers of the executive it struck me that perhaps no issue in British politics is ever truly resolved, but they remain at most dormant for a time ready to flare up again periodically.
His is a bit of an odd book, admittedly it is a very short book, and so there is a limit to what one can discuss even when considering a King who was cut short at an age when only his beard had gone grey, even so Kishlansky interprets his remit as rehabilitating that man of blood in the context of writing a slightly breathless (105 page) political biography, the problem with this is that Charles's decisions can look weird and questionable even in a favourable account of his abbreviated life, his departure from London at the beginning of the English Civil War is passed over with an airy hand wave even though Kishlansky has told us that ten percent of the population lived in London and that then as now it was the Legal, Commercial, and Economic heart of Britain but also then had the largest stock of weapons and munitions in the country, stepping away from the centre of power in the middle of a power struggle with Parliament - I find myself at a loss for words, the author as I say passes over this curious decision.
On the whole he succeeds in giving a sense of a 'man more sinned against than sinning' as his theatrical predecessor King Lear said, Charles was not responsible for the religious tensions in the realm that he created, nor did the financial situation begin with him, nor did he create subjects who were eager for aggressive military action and unwilling to pay a penny for it. On the other hand, he was the king, the one who had the power to manipulate parliamentary elections, the one who made the senior appointments, who initiated policy, who was at the centre of the political and legal system, I was reminded of Machiavelli dividing Princes into three types, those who are great and stable geniuses, those who know that they are not and so need to choose careful and competent officials and advisors, and those who feel the need to tell people that they are great and stable geniuses and can't be left safely on their own in a room. And perhaps Charles was let down by his virtues, perhaps he was loyal to people who were just not up to the job, I don't know, but in a political biography even the most sympathetic writer can not get round the fact that Charles was decapitated by his own subjects.
Considering Charles' interest in the Arts, a field in which he was as a collector perhaps the greatest of all British monarchs, it is a pity that Kishlansky did not broaden the book out to more than a political biography. Still reading about conflict between England, Scotland, and Ireland, tensions over religious identity, conflict in the courts over the prerogative powers of the executive it struck me that perhaps no issue in British politics is ever truly resolved, but they remain at most dormant for a time ready to flare up again periodically.
September 27, 2020
As others have noted, Kishlansky seems to go out of his way to put the best face on Charles I's actions, whereas the traditional view has been that Charles was devious and a bit incompetent. However, the author's focus on the unique times in which Charles lived helps explain, at least in part, his failure as a king. Charles reign saw a rapid growth among various Christian sects in Britain, from the Presbyterians in Scotland, to the Puritans and their affiliates in England, and this period also saw the beginnings of the influx of Protestants to Ireland - while many Puritans went to New England, a good number decamped to Ireland and helped increase and exacerbate the Protestant-Catholic divide. Charles was firmly in favor of the State Church of England, and he was married to a French Catholic, neither of which endeared him to those who favored an independent church or churches (or kirk in Scotland). Echoes of the English Civil war appeared in the US Constitution in the form of the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of a state religion or church.
But regardless of the adverse circumstances Charles found himself in, which included wars with neighboring countries in addition to his religious troubles, he often seemed tone deaf to the effect his actions would have and he failed to exert force when force might have nipped a conspiracy in the bud. I find it hard to imagine Henry VIII being as tolerant of the actions of Parliament as Charles was; Charles seemed to lack the confidence, and ability to inspire fear that emanated from Henry so readily. In this sense, Charles was weak, and yet, in different times, with fewer challenges, he might have been considered at least an average king. Instead he became the one and only king in British history to be tried by Parliament and condemned to death.
This book is an easy read, and though it is short, it covers the history of Charles' reign with sufficient depth for any person who simply wishes to gain an understanding of Charles and of the English Revolution. The 100 pages of Kishlansky's book is about 50 times more than I received on the subject in my college European History course, so I am satisfied.
But regardless of the adverse circumstances Charles found himself in, which included wars with neighboring countries in addition to his religious troubles, he often seemed tone deaf to the effect his actions would have and he failed to exert force when force might have nipped a conspiracy in the bud. I find it hard to imagine Henry VIII being as tolerant of the actions of Parliament as Charles was; Charles seemed to lack the confidence, and ability to inspire fear that emanated from Henry so readily. In this sense, Charles was weak, and yet, in different times, with fewer challenges, he might have been considered at least an average king. Instead he became the one and only king in British history to be tried by Parliament and condemned to death.
This book is an easy read, and though it is short, it covers the history of Charles' reign with sufficient depth for any person who simply wishes to gain an understanding of Charles and of the English Revolution. The 100 pages of Kishlansky's book is about 50 times more than I received on the subject in my college European History course, so I am satisfied.
September 5, 2018
These Penguin Monarch books are excellent for a summary of the lives of the monarchs. I enjoyed this one as I only really knew the famed facts about Charles I in detail but now I feel I can fill some gaps. Great book for History lovers.
March 29, 2023
This was well done.
A bit overly positive but I understand the desire given the many negative portrayals.
This was short but surprisingly detailed.
A nice edition in this series.
A bit overly positive but I understand the desire given the many negative portrayals.
This was short but surprisingly detailed.
A nice edition in this series.
January 28, 2022
I come out with a completely new perspective of Charles 1st and therefore, I shall rate it as a very good book. Many stereotypes I carried in my mind have been swept aside by this little book of historical argument. A book of questions, one that lights a flame rather than filling a bucket, is what I consider a book worth reading. This was certainly one of those.
November 23, 2022
Kishlansky presents the story of King Charles I as one of a devout Christian monarch martyred for his rule, vindicating him through analysing evidence. His rulership is shown not as one to be shunned, but replicated. His misfortune, as simply bad luck.
July 17, 2015
This is one of the first (at the time of writing) of a new series of books about kings and queens of England. These are short books, designed to give a brief overview in a nice, small format.
If the others in the series are as good as this, they will demonstrate the great role that shorter surveys play in the study of history. So often, I find, detail can obscure rather than elucidate. This book does an admirable job of looking at the big themes, mainly political, and helping give a picture of the period and the character of the 'man of blood'. Despite my inflammatory use of this phrase (sorry, Cavaliers all), the author takes a broadly sympathetic view of Charles, and again it's a great strength of the format and author that not being bound to the tyranny of detail allows the book to follow and explain a clear viewpoint. I'm now looking forward to how they deal with Cromwell when that one comes out...
If the others in the series are as good as this, they will demonstrate the great role that shorter surveys play in the study of history. So often, I find, detail can obscure rather than elucidate. This book does an admirable job of looking at the big themes, mainly political, and helping give a picture of the period and the character of the 'man of blood'. Despite my inflammatory use of this phrase (sorry, Cavaliers all), the author takes a broadly sympathetic view of Charles, and again it's a great strength of the format and author that not being bound to the tyranny of detail allows the book to follow and explain a clear viewpoint. I'm now looking forward to how they deal with Cromwell when that one comes out...
November 27, 2016
If you are looking for a quick and balanced take on the life and reign of Charles I, this is it. It is somewhere between a full-length biography and a Wikipedia article in length, and it assigns blame to both (all?) sides in the tumultuous era of Charles's reign. Insightful, but because of its brevity, leaves out a lot of material that one might want to know.
July 20, 2020
nothing like a bit of regicide on a saturday morning
March 8, 2025
The OG Chuck went out in the most gangster way of all: without a head.
Good read, excellent line: "He bowed to the inevitable and prepared for the eternal."
Good read, excellent line: "He bowed to the inevitable and prepared for the eternal."
February 19, 2018
I disagree with the first sentence of this book: "Charles I is the most despised monarch in Britain's historical memory." That distinction belongs to King John who not only had his powers limited by Magna Carta but went down in history as a sniveling villain. Even Charles I's detractors acknowledged his personal virtues including his devotion to his family and that he met his end with courage and dignity. Despite this questionable beginning, Charles I: An Abbreviated Life is nevertheless a good introduction to the major issues of Charles's reign including religion, foreign policy and parliament, ending with a summary of the English Civil Wars. Kishlansky provides a balanced analysis of Charles I's character, discussing both his better qualities and his political shortcomings. I would have liked more information to have been included in the bookabout his famous art collection (a few illustrations are included in the text).
October 15, 2015
Some history books simply regurgitate what everyone else says, but others make you see things from a completely different perspective. This book falls into the latter category and it made me think about the factors which led to the English Civil Wars in a whole new light. It's not the biggest, most in-depth book about Charles I out there, but in my opinion, it certainly ranks among the best. Kishlanksy provided an extremely entertaining, enlightening analysis of these factors and I look forward to reading his other books, although we'll sadly be denied any more from him in the future. What a truly excellent historian, what a great book.
November 24, 2019
Cracking little books. My first, definitely not my last. I always knew Charles was misunderstood!
April 4, 2019
Another worthy edition in the Penguin Monarchs series. Mark Kishlansky attempts a revisionist biography of Charles I which tries to positively spin the king who lost his head by stacking up the problems he faced rather than fully attempting to explain away his demise by refashioning views of his personality. With this caveat, Kishlansky succeeds. It seems that Charles and Parliament were at war from day one, with almost brexit like intransigence from parliament who insisted on petitioning about numerous concerns rather than ever straightforwardly voting for adequate supply to the king.
Indeed, Charles may have made mistakes, misjudgements and errors throughout his reign but was always seemingly on the backfoot, fighting religious disaffection and a parliament that demanded to be heard. In Kishlanskys' view Charles was no secret catholic and, indeed applied laws against catholics more thoroughly than previous monarchs. His marriage to Henrietta Maria, began badly and they took some time to warm to each other, finally finding commonality and love during the years of Personal Rule. Kishlansky also states that Charles often compromised and offered terms in tight corners and was much less the stubborn, aloof, king of previous biographies. Little is said about Divine Right and there isn't enough room to fully develop the influence of his father and the Duke of Buckingham- worth remembering that like Henry V111, Charles was a second son, not entirely expecting to become king.
The onset of the Civil war is well dealt with and there is good attention, in such a short study to events in Ireland and Scotland where the revolt against the prayer book was more serious than Charles anticipated. He was also regularly overtaken by events with messengers arriving with out of date news- hence, Charles could often not respond effectively.
The War itself is covered with speed and verve. The dominance of the army in the immediate post war period could have been an opportunity, since the Heads of Proposals were the best deal he was ever offered but he doubted the support of parliament for such compromise.
Ultimately, Kishlansky concurs with earlier biographers that his death was the thing he could work out how to manage and he died with dignity and as something of a hero, to his supporters at least.
Cromwell (the subject of his own book in this series, by David Horspool) is barely mentioned and
in a sense the children born from the marriage to Henrietta Maria secured the Stuart legacy, post Interrugnum.
Kishlansky, passed away in the last few years but this little book, combined with his longer, clever and very readable Volume in the Penguin History series on the seventeenth century are both worthy legacies to his always clear and readable style.
Indeed, Charles may have made mistakes, misjudgements and errors throughout his reign but was always seemingly on the backfoot, fighting religious disaffection and a parliament that demanded to be heard. In Kishlanskys' view Charles was no secret catholic and, indeed applied laws against catholics more thoroughly than previous monarchs. His marriage to Henrietta Maria, began badly and they took some time to warm to each other, finally finding commonality and love during the years of Personal Rule. Kishlansky also states that Charles often compromised and offered terms in tight corners and was much less the stubborn, aloof, king of previous biographies. Little is said about Divine Right and there isn't enough room to fully develop the influence of his father and the Duke of Buckingham- worth remembering that like Henry V111, Charles was a second son, not entirely expecting to become king.
The onset of the Civil war is well dealt with and there is good attention, in such a short study to events in Ireland and Scotland where the revolt against the prayer book was more serious than Charles anticipated. He was also regularly overtaken by events with messengers arriving with out of date news- hence, Charles could often not respond effectively.
The War itself is covered with speed and verve. The dominance of the army in the immediate post war period could have been an opportunity, since the Heads of Proposals were the best deal he was ever offered but he doubted the support of parliament for such compromise.
Ultimately, Kishlansky concurs with earlier biographers that his death was the thing he could work out how to manage and he died with dignity and as something of a hero, to his supporters at least.
Cromwell (the subject of his own book in this series, by David Horspool) is barely mentioned and
in a sense the children born from the marriage to Henrietta Maria secured the Stuart legacy, post Interrugnum.
Kishlansky, passed away in the last few years but this little book, combined with his longer, clever and very readable Volume in the Penguin History series on the seventeenth century are both worthy legacies to his always clear and readable style.
October 9, 2025
My knowledge of English monarchy dwindles out after Elizabeth I. Although I can name them all, their histories are sketchy. So I was happy to see this short biography on Charles I. All I knew of him was that he was son to James I (VI of Scotland), he was tried and executed for treason (which as king never made sense to me), and Oliver Cromwell (distant relation of Thomas Cromwell) ruled as Lord Protector after his death. This author portrays Charles fairly sympathetically whereas history sees him as uncompromising and an autocrat (he did believe unequivocally in divine right of kings). There are instants where the author shows Charles compromising but it’s when his back is against the wall and there’s no other way out. I did enjoy learning about the two civil wars and the dispute with Scotland over introducing English Common Book of Prayer and bishops to their churches. I’d like to read more on the time era.
April 5, 2025
Kishlansky undertakes a monumental task in compressing the reign of Charles I, and thus the English Civil War, into a brief history. Kishlansky is upfront about his sympathy for his controversial subject. And though I do not necessarily share that sympathy, I do think he rose to the difficult challenge of writing this book admirably. Kishlansky provides a good starting point for readers who have basic knowledge of British history and want to learn more about the English Civil War. This is best paired with David Horspool’s biography of Oliver Cromwell, another entry in the Penguin English Monarchs series.
May 8, 2017
3.5 stars
A good introduction to the life of Charles I. However you quickly realise that his reign was far too complex to be limited to 100+ pages. So though this book is a good jumping off point, and while I appreciate it didn't specifically demonise anyone but instead allowed you to develop your own opinions, if you truly want to understand what happened, I would suggest a more thorough biography.
A good introduction to the life of Charles I. However you quickly realise that his reign was far too complex to be limited to 100+ pages. So though this book is a good jumping off point, and while I appreciate it didn't specifically demonise anyone but instead allowed you to develop your own opinions, if you truly want to understand what happened, I would suggest a more thorough biography.
Read
September 6, 2019The truth behind one of history's most maligned kings
This biographer doesn't mince his words when it comes to his main subject. Charles is neither hero not villain. He's judged in the context of the era he belongs to which means that for fans and apologists of either side, especially Cromwell, are in for a rude awakening. Despite being short, this bio covers all important aspects of Charles life and reign.
This biographer doesn't mince his words when it comes to his main subject. Charles is neither hero not villain. He's judged in the context of the era he belongs to which means that for fans and apologists of either side, especially Cromwell, are in for a rude awakening. Despite being short, this bio covers all important aspects of Charles life and reign.
November 28, 2019
I found this book a little dry for me. I learned a few things that I didn’t know about Charles I, but the book mainly deals with politics and I didn’t really learn much about the personal life of the man behind the crown.
March 6, 2020
Love it
Really great info, argument and now I love Charles! Thank you kishlansky for revealing a loving and caring and brave king 🥰
Really great info, argument and now I love Charles! Thank you kishlansky for revealing a loving and caring and brave king 🥰
March 6, 2022
3.75 stars
Helpful summary of the Monarchs life, key policies and fateful misjudgements - read for my A-level history course 🥰💛
“I am the martyr of the people” - Charles I
Helpful summary of the Monarchs life, key policies and fateful misjudgements - read for my A-level history course 🥰💛
“I am the martyr of the people” - Charles I
February 3, 2023
This was a quite good survey that countered a fair amount of the Whig propaganda that surrounds the Martyr King.
Read
November 27, 2023Good introduction, I enjoyed its sympathetic tone. Decent suggestions for further reading too.
May 5, 2024
A poignant and convincing portrait of a noble, if misguided king who became a martyr for the mixed constitution of king, lords, and commons.
August 15, 2024
Not particularly balanced but I didn’t really mind- very readable!
December 30, 2024
This is the first time in Penguin’s series that I felt a book was rushed. The limited number of pages doesn’t do justice to capturing who Charles I was beyond his failures as king.
June 8, 2025
A sympathetic biography of Charles I - the author repeatedly portrays the King as reasonable and willing to compromise in the face of unyielding + uncompromising hostility from his various foes.
February 28, 2020
read this for homework on the earl of strafford. really helpful
December 30, 2023
Interesting indeed to learn more about this rather controversial King. I mean, just look at the opening line:
"Charles I is the most despised monarch in Britain's historical memory. Considering that among his predecessors were murderers, rapists, psychotics, and the mentally challenged, this is no small distinction"
I thought that Kishlansky took a very unbiased view in this biography, something which must have been hard as on the topic of Charles I it can get quite heated as to his right to rule.
I am rather looking forward to reading more of these Penguin Monarchs books, maybe I should read Cromwell next to hear his side of the story...
"Charles I is the most despised monarch in Britain's historical memory. Considering that among his predecessors were murderers, rapists, psychotics, and the mentally challenged, this is no small distinction"
I thought that Kishlansky took a very unbiased view in this biography, something which must have been hard as on the topic of Charles I it can get quite heated as to his right to rule.
I am rather looking forward to reading more of these Penguin Monarchs books, maybe I should read Cromwell next to hear his side of the story...
December 31, 2016
I have to admit I sort of skimmed through this but it was interesting from the standpoint of what a pain in the butt it was to be king back then. He was at war almost his entire reign, begging his supporters for money all the time, at odds with his wife for the first years of their marriage, and then finally was beheaded by his own Parliament. It was nice that his wife finally fell in love with him and he had some years of a happy marriage because he seemed devoted to her from the start.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews