What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of England #6
The Stuart Age: England, 1603-1714
Occupying the top spot on most undergraduate reading lists for this period, and widely used by teachers and students on A-level courses on early modern British history, The Stuart Age is the definitive history of England¿s century of civil war and revolution. This new edition clarifies and makes sense of recent historiographical trends over the last decade. In a substantial new introduction to the volume, Barry Coward provides an important assessment of the impact of new revisionist approaches on historical writing about the Stuart age.
608 pages, Paperback
First published October 6, 1980
12 people are currently reading
200 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
July 4, 2018
After the act of the Tudors, how would the Stuarts follow up in ruling England? Barry Coward covers the history of England between 1603 and 1714 in The Stuart Age giving the reading a comprehensive look at the developments across religion, economy, politics, and government while trying to dispel old assumptions and highlight new research.
Coward begins and ends the book with looking a statistical view England, at first looking how England developed through the early Stuarts to 1650 and then through the Interregnum and late Stuarts until the Hanoverian ascension. The vast majority of the book covers the narrative flow of history of the period from the ascension of James VI of Scotland as James I of England after the death of Elizabeth to the death of his great-granddaughter Anne with all the twists and turns that happened within the domestic political arena that saw numerous failed attempts at Scottish union to disagreements between monarchs and parliament and finally the dispossessions of monarchs from the throne through execution and invited invasion then dictating who can take the throne. Plus add in the events in Scotland and Ireland that played important roles at critical times that shaped events in England that made the century what it was.
The book is first and foremost an overview of the era with Coward attempting to give the events that took place their proper context in the evolution of government or religion or anything else related to “modern” Britain. In doing this he set aside many myths about the era especially in the context of their times, he also gave context between “court” and “country” political establishments especially in relation to developments on the continent, i.e. the rise of absolutism and centralized government. However, one of the drawbacks is that Coward would bring up other historians and juxtapose their theories on events without just simply making his own mark on the interpretation of the events. Another feature which was lacking was that the military campaigns of especially the English Civil War, but also the continental wars, weren’t highlighted much especially since the Civil War was only covered in one whole chapter yet as an overview book it wasn’t unexpected. And finally, as this edition of the book—the 2nd published in 1994—is almost 25 years old further research and debate has been missed out on.
The Stuart Age does its job fantastically well by giving an overview of the entire Stuart era that like other parts of English history seemed to be overshadowed by the proceeding Tudors. Barry Coward’s layout of the period gives the reader perspective of the statistical elements of history that will influence the later narrative of the political and military events that make of the majority of the book then the aftereffects of those events on the same statistics, though slow in the beginning pays off and make this book pop. If you’re looking for an overview of this period in English history, then you should consider this book.
Coward begins and ends the book with looking a statistical view England, at first looking how England developed through the early Stuarts to 1650 and then through the Interregnum and late Stuarts until the Hanoverian ascension. The vast majority of the book covers the narrative flow of history of the period from the ascension of James VI of Scotland as James I of England after the death of Elizabeth to the death of his great-granddaughter Anne with all the twists and turns that happened within the domestic political arena that saw numerous failed attempts at Scottish union to disagreements between monarchs and parliament and finally the dispossessions of monarchs from the throne through execution and invited invasion then dictating who can take the throne. Plus add in the events in Scotland and Ireland that played important roles at critical times that shaped events in England that made the century what it was.
The book is first and foremost an overview of the era with Coward attempting to give the events that took place their proper context in the evolution of government or religion or anything else related to “modern” Britain. In doing this he set aside many myths about the era especially in the context of their times, he also gave context between “court” and “country” political establishments especially in relation to developments on the continent, i.e. the rise of absolutism and centralized government. However, one of the drawbacks is that Coward would bring up other historians and juxtapose their theories on events without just simply making his own mark on the interpretation of the events. Another feature which was lacking was that the military campaigns of especially the English Civil War, but also the continental wars, weren’t highlighted much especially since the Civil War was only covered in one whole chapter yet as an overview book it wasn’t unexpected. And finally, as this edition of the book—the 2nd published in 1994—is almost 25 years old further research and debate has been missed out on.
The Stuart Age does its job fantastically well by giving an overview of the entire Stuart era that like other parts of English history seemed to be overshadowed by the proceeding Tudors. Barry Coward’s layout of the period gives the reader perspective of the statistical elements of history that will influence the later narrative of the political and military events that make of the majority of the book then the aftereffects of those events on the same statistics, though slow in the beginning pays off and make this book pop. If you’re looking for an overview of this period in English history, then you should consider this book.
Read
August 8, 2025Throughout my read of Pepys’ diary, I sensed a void. While I had taken an undergraduate course a lifetime ago in English history, one that began with the Glorious Revolution, I was ignorant of the years preceding. Then, finishing J. J. Scarisbrick’s biography of Henry VIII, I realized that I needed to fill in the void sooner rather than later. Which brought me to this book, really a textbook tailored for advanced students of history, those interested in a broad survey of seventeenth-century Great Britain. In other words, familiarity with the essential highlights of this period would help. I likely would have found this volume more rewarding if I had a better grasp of the basic events of this era, especially those prior to 1660.
I processed this text in four parts: the road to civil war, the English Revolution, the Restoration, and the Glorious Revolution. Following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603, James I of England succeeded to the throne. This was the same James VI of Scotland. England and Scotland were henceforth joined under one royal banner. This line of monarchs became known as the House of Stuart because James’ father was Henry Stuart, Lord of Darnley, even though his mother was the great-granddaughter of a Tudor, Henry VII. The major concerns that percolated through the seventeenth century – conflicting religions, the management of three occasionally antagonistic kingdoms, and public finances – were effectively controlled under James, albeit with a large measure of diverse intrigues. Not so under his son.
With the death of James I in 1625, his son, Charles I, stepped to center stage. I believe it is fair to label Charles an incompetent ruler. The authors offer a modestly kinder assessment: “It is difficult not to sympathize with the judgement that Charles I was the most inept monarch to have occupied the English throne since Henry VI in the fifteenth century.” His detached, narrow-minded, tone-deaf administration stirred disaffection in nearly every quarter provoking the English Revolution of the early 1640s and, then more broadly, the War of the Three Kingdoms. Charles paid for his inadequacies with his execution on 30 January 1649, age forty-eight.
Political and religious turmoil ensued, eventually offering opportunity to Oliver Cromwell. Otherwise destined to a minor, if nonexistent, place in the annals of English history, Cromwell distinguished himself in battle and found himself yet another beneficiary of being at the right place at the right time. From the death of Charles I, Cromwell quickly rose in authority to become Lord Protector of the British republic on 16 December 1653. Offered the crown, he declined. His rule was brief, however. He died on 3 September 1658, age fifty-nine. His son Richard, who assumed the role of Lord Protector, was unable to match his father’s acumen. As a result, Charles II was invited to assume the throne, a moment that Samuel Pepys ably recorded.
The Restoration eventually led to the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689. With Charles II’s death in 1685, his son James II, a strong Catholic supporter, came to the throne. Because of his religious conviction, his days appeared numbered by definition. The door was soon opened for the entry of William of Orange and his wife Mary, sister of Charles II. Interestingly, the Tories and Whigs emerged as political entities at this time, though attempting to define who these party members were or what policies they promoted was difficult because groups were variously called “Court,” “Country,” “Church,” “Patriots,” “Jacobites,” “Trimmers,” “Republicans,” and “Commonwealthmen.” The authors note:
This century proved a remarkable incubator for plots, both real and imagined. Students of history can revel in their abundance, among them the Bye Plot, the Main Plot (one that eventually ensnared Sir Walter Raleigh), the Gunpowder Plot, the Puritan Plot, several Popish Plots, the Rye House Plot, the Scottish “Incident” of 1641, and an assassination plot of 1696. Students can also feast on the parliamentary names that arose between 1640 and 1660, such as “Long,” “Short,” “Rump,” and “Barebones,” some used to describe more than one parliamentary session, and also a long list of religious groups, such as the Fifth Monarchists, the Levellers, Particular Baptists, General Baptists, Grindletonians, Muggletonians, Quakers, and Ranters, in addition to the mainstream Anglican, Presbyterian, and Catholic denominations in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively.
Since this was an era of religious fervor, these pages discuss a wide array of sentiments. I especially noted the commentary for one Tory provocateur active in the reign of Queen Anne – successor to William and Mary, as Mary’s sister, and the last of the Stuarts – Dr. Henry Sacheverell. This orator would be most welcome in those sections of America today that adore demagoguery.
I noticed while reading these pages that historians must confront a significant issue regarding monetary accounts. When writing of incomes or wealth – and I believe the two are best treated separately – standards should be developed that allow for comparison across time and place. Just as a trillion dollars no longer appears what it once was in my country so am I at a loss to understand what a loan of £100,000 meant in 1611 or a parliamentary war expenditure of £4 million in 1692. I beg, for the sake of all, and this weary reader in particular, can someone please solve this recurring dilemma.
I processed this text in four parts: the road to civil war, the English Revolution, the Restoration, and the Glorious Revolution. Following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603, James I of England succeeded to the throne. This was the same James VI of Scotland. England and Scotland were henceforth joined under one royal banner. This line of monarchs became known as the House of Stuart because James’ father was Henry Stuart, Lord of Darnley, even though his mother was the great-granddaughter of a Tudor, Henry VII. The major concerns that percolated through the seventeenth century – conflicting religions, the management of three occasionally antagonistic kingdoms, and public finances – were effectively controlled under James, albeit with a large measure of diverse intrigues. Not so under his son.
With the death of James I in 1625, his son, Charles I, stepped to center stage. I believe it is fair to label Charles an incompetent ruler. The authors offer a modestly kinder assessment: “It is difficult not to sympathize with the judgement that Charles I was the most inept monarch to have occupied the English throne since Henry VI in the fifteenth century.” His detached, narrow-minded, tone-deaf administration stirred disaffection in nearly every quarter provoking the English Revolution of the early 1640s and, then more broadly, the War of the Three Kingdoms. Charles paid for his inadequacies with his execution on 30 January 1649, age forty-eight.
Political and religious turmoil ensued, eventually offering opportunity to Oliver Cromwell. Otherwise destined to a minor, if nonexistent, place in the annals of English history, Cromwell distinguished himself in battle and found himself yet another beneficiary of being at the right place at the right time. From the death of Charles I, Cromwell quickly rose in authority to become Lord Protector of the British republic on 16 December 1653. Offered the crown, he declined. His rule was brief, however. He died on 3 September 1658, age fifty-nine. His son Richard, who assumed the role of Lord Protector, was unable to match his father’s acumen. As a result, Charles II was invited to assume the throne, a moment that Samuel Pepys ably recorded.
The Restoration eventually led to the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689. With Charles II’s death in 1685, his son James II, a strong Catholic supporter, came to the throne. Because of his religious conviction, his days appeared numbered by definition. The door was soon opened for the entry of William of Orange and his wife Mary, sister of Charles II. Interestingly, the Tories and Whigs emerged as political entities at this time, though attempting to define who these party members were or what policies they promoted was difficult because groups were variously called “Court,” “Country,” “Church,” “Patriots,” “Jacobites,” “Trimmers,” “Republicans,” and “Commonwealthmen.” The authors note:
If all this were not bad enough, those politicians who with a fair degree of certainty can be classified as Whigs and Tories at the end of William’s reign appear to hold different ideas and have different aims from those Whigs and Tories before and immediately after the Glorious Revolution. Looking at the political history of the 1690s, the historian is in danger of suffering from attacks of double vision. With one eye he sees Whigs and Tories; with the other he sees court and country MPs.
This century proved a remarkable incubator for plots, both real and imagined. Students of history can revel in their abundance, among them the Bye Plot, the Main Plot (one that eventually ensnared Sir Walter Raleigh), the Gunpowder Plot, the Puritan Plot, several Popish Plots, the Rye House Plot, the Scottish “Incident” of 1641, and an assassination plot of 1696. Students can also feast on the parliamentary names that arose between 1640 and 1660, such as “Long,” “Short,” “Rump,” and “Barebones,” some used to describe more than one parliamentary session, and also a long list of religious groups, such as the Fifth Monarchists, the Levellers, Particular Baptists, General Baptists, Grindletonians, Muggletonians, Quakers, and Ranters, in addition to the mainstream Anglican, Presbyterian, and Catholic denominations in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively.
Since this was an era of religious fervor, these pages discuss a wide array of sentiments. I especially noted the commentary for one Tory provocateur active in the reign of Queen Anne – successor to William and Mary, as Mary’s sister, and the last of the Stuarts – Dr. Henry Sacheverell. This orator would be most welcome in those sections of America today that adore demagoguery.
Prolific though he was as a writer and preacher, there is very little evidence that Sacheverell had any profound intellectual ability. His gifts lay in the propounding of ideas not in their formulation; he was the most prominent of a crop of brilliant, if detestable, Anglican preachers produced by Oxford University in the eighteenth century. Like most self-appointed spokesmen of “the silent majority” Sacheverell not only voiced the fears of many, but also in the process exaggerated them and so inflamed public opinion, sometimes to the point of violence.Unlike our open forums that appear to exist without restraint, Dr. Sacheverell’s activities met with sanction. He was impeached by Parliament and convicted, albeit with a slight punishment – three years’ suspension from preaching.
I noticed while reading these pages that historians must confront a significant issue regarding monetary accounts. When writing of incomes or wealth – and I believe the two are best treated separately – standards should be developed that allow for comparison across time and place. Just as a trillion dollars no longer appears what it once was in my country so am I at a loss to understand what a loan of £100,000 meant in 1611 or a parliamentary war expenditure of £4 million in 1692. I beg, for the sake of all, and this weary reader in particular, can someone please solve this recurring dilemma.
October 21, 2013
Though this was intended to be a fairly straightforward and comprehensive look at England in the 17th century, almost a textbook really, it is surprisingly readable. Coward focuses on the monarchs (both Jameses, both Charleses, William and Mary, and Anne) and the Cromwellian interregum, and on how the long battles over finances and religion between the executive and the parliament continued throughout this period, which provides a fairly linear, though complicated, narrative to follow.
Coward makes a strong case for consistency in conflict between king (or Cromwell) and parliament throughout. James's and Charles's attempts to tax customs without statutes and to extort "ship money" assessments from inland counties, leading to parliamentary protests, were mimicked in the post-Civil War period by parliament's demands in the second Dutch War (1664-1667) to force on Charles II a royal commission to examine public accounts and their specifying for the first time how sums appropriated should be spent. The conflict was seemingly eternal.
Still, Coward shows that while fiscal and constitutional issues dominated the first 40 years of Stuart control, religious issues, especially fear of Catholicism, dominated the latter period. This anti-catholic paranoia was sparked by the revelation that Charles's son, the future James II, was a Catholic, demonstrated by his stepping down from a government post after the passage of the Test Act of 1673, which barred Catholics from office. After that, no parliament could fully trust the king and his heirs.
Coward shows how different early modern English "government" was from our own, so much so that he thinks that "government" is an inappropriate term for the variety of informal powers and mechanisms extending outward from the king's court. For instance, in the early 17th century, 40% of all the kingdom's budget was spent on the king's household itself. In this context, any debate about government "policy" was almost beside the point. All that money, the debate over which lead to such strife, mainly went to rich clothes and rich nephews.
There is admittedly a lot frustrating about this book. Like almost all English historians, including those who are supposedly writing straightforward, introductory texts, Coward assumes ready knowledge of things like the Cockney scheme or the Duke of Buckingham (though he doesn't go into it much, he was James I most intense male love), and this can be extremely irritating. The number of names, which often are changed with changing peerage placements, is simply impossible to follow, especially when so much is assumed to be common knowledge. Still, much of this text is thankfully easy to follow, and after finishing I finally feel like I understand a bit about this fascinating and chaotic age.
November 23, 2021
If I were to describe this history of Stuart England in a single word, I would have to go with dry. Covering English history from 1603 to 1714 is a big task and this book often feels more like a textbook than an exploration of a fascinating period. It's dated (published 1980), yet still provides value in its overviews and breath of topics covered for this period. The focus is on political history, but the author also spends plenty of time discussing religious, economic, and social topics as well. Overall, the tone is pretty dry, so this book is likely more appreciated by those interested in a deep knowledge of the period and less valued by those seeking an overview.
July 17, 2011
This is a terrible thing to say about a book that covers the sweep of the English Civil War, the Interregnum, the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution, and the last gasps of the Stuart line as political parties come into their own, but it needs to be said: it's all a bit boring, isn't it?
Partly this is because Coward appears to have an allergy to narrative history (yes, I hold his snippy comments about Wedgwood in the bibliography against him), indeed most of the time refereeing debates between rival historians instead of writing directly about what's going on. As a result, unless you've got a reasonable grounding in the history already, it's easy to get confused -- you'll know which of the rival academic factions in the Storm Over the Gentry ultimately won out, but have less idea of what said gentry were actually up to.
With that said, Coward's clearly well-grounded in the literature, and the word definitely does enrich one's understanding of the history by lending some real analytic heft, but if you're looking for a book that captures the excitement and ferment of the era, keep looking.
Partly this is because Coward appears to have an allergy to narrative history (yes, I hold his snippy comments about Wedgwood in the bibliography against him), indeed most of the time refereeing debates between rival historians instead of writing directly about what's going on. As a result, unless you've got a reasonable grounding in the history already, it's easy to get confused -- you'll know which of the rival academic factions in the Storm Over the Gentry ultimately won out, but have less idea of what said gentry were actually up to.
With that said, Coward's clearly well-grounded in the literature, and the word definitely does enrich one's understanding of the history by lending some real analytic heft, but if you're looking for a book that captures the excitement and ferment of the era, keep looking.
August 17, 2018
I have not read earlier editions of this book so do not know what to attribute to the late Barry Coward or to Peter Gaunt, who revised the book in its present form. The book is really strong on the historiography of the seventeenth century and is, undoubtedly, the best single volume introduction to the period available, however, its own historiographical stance seems incapable of pronouncing on the causes of the civil wars or, indeed, anything above the level of an individual battle (peter Gaunt is a military historian). Preceding the account of any significant event (other than military confrontations where the material balance of forces, motivation, training and leadership are usually accorded causative effect) will be a wholly redundant caveat that the event "was not inevitable"; it is as though the author(s) are carrying out an unacknowledged debate with an absent Marxist determinist. What one is left with, at the end of the book, is a very good coverage of both the period and the changing historical approaches to the period - but nothing at all about what might have been the cause of the civil wars, rise of republicanism, anti-Catholic feeling or nationalism. The tremendously useful bibliographical note at the end of the volume is recommended.
February 25, 2019
I don’t think there’s a better introductory book to Stuart England than Coward’s ‘The Stuart Age’. It manages to be both comprehensive and readable as well as fully engaging and even witty at times. Of all the books aimed at providing initial insight into a period I’ve read, I do have to say this is one of the best.
That said, I don’t think the book deserves its status as the epitome of works on the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Coward frequently sits on the fence of important historical debates about the period so at times it can feel more like a confusing catalogue of diverging historical opinion than a book presenting his.
This book was never going to win any awards for being the most groundbreaking or compelling insight on Stuart England, but it ultimately does what it says on the tin - it’s one of the best books out there for the reader who’s looking for a first look into this complex and fascinating time in English history.
That said, I don’t think the book deserves its status as the epitome of works on the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Coward frequently sits on the fence of important historical debates about the period so at times it can feel more like a confusing catalogue of diverging historical opinion than a book presenting his.
This book was never going to win any awards for being the most groundbreaking or compelling insight on Stuart England, but it ultimately does what it says on the tin - it’s one of the best books out there for the reader who’s looking for a first look into this complex and fascinating time in English history.
June 6, 2019
Barry Coward provides a splendid overview of just over a hundred years of English history. Highly recommended as an introduction to the politics, religion, and society of the era.
May 11, 2025
Read most of this. Was not really a fan of how it was organized but otherwise a fine textbook.
January 6, 2021
basic, nuts and bolts overview consistent with the title. nothing objectionable from a lay perspective, but nothing too flashy, neither.
Read
November 10, 2018Kind of read it... parts of it...
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews