What do you think?
Rate this book
Royal Charles: Charles II and the Restoration
The acclaimed biographer details the life, reign, and impact of King Charles II of England, revealing him to have been far more serious, sensible, and competent than has been thought.
524 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1979
70 people are currently reading
1500 people want to read
About the author
Antonia Fraser
183 books1,494 followersAntonia Fraser is the author of many widely acclaimed historical works, including the biographies Mary, Queen of Scots (a 40th anniversary edition was published in May 2009), Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, King Charles II and The Gunpowder Plot (CWA Non-Fiction Gold Dagger; St Louis Literary Award). She has written five highly praised books which focus on women in history, The Weaker Vessel: Women's Lot in Seventeenth Century Britain (Wolfson Award for History, 1984), The Warrior Queens: Boadecia's Chariot, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Marie Antoinette: The Journey (Franco-British Literary Prize 2001), which was made into a film by Sofia Coppola in 2006 and most recently Love and Louis XIV: The Women in the Life of the Sun King. She was awarded the Norton Medlicott Medal by the Historical Association in 2000. Antonia Fraser was made DBE in 2011 for her services to literature. Her most recent book is Must You Go?, celebrating her life with Harold Pinter, who died on Christmas Eve 2008. She lives in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
September 16, 2019
"Royal Charles" is a fabulous book by one of the great historians of our time. As always Fraser judges the players severely but never applies the standards of a different era.
Charles II emerges as a very admirable King in Fraser's book. He understand what his role was and what limitations were imposed to him. He acted courageously during the Great Fire of London. He loved his wife, his many mistresses and his numerous bastards. He promoted architecture, science, horse-racing and the building of parks. He preferred deceit to confrontation and was for religious toleration. His political judgement was superb. Fraser's conclusion is that Charles II was a veru good monarch who always reacted in the right way to events but one who lacked the "Nietzschean will' to transform his nation.
Fraser's book reads so well that one can forget about little of the context is explained. Fraser is clearly writing for a readership that knows English history very well. She refers to covenanters, Whigs and Puritans without explaining who they were or what their political agendas were. Fraser is so good as a narrator and describes people so well that most readers will never notice how little of the political manoeuvring they understand. Ultimately Fraser's choice to write about the man and those in his entourage rather more than the times that they lived is quite legitimate. However, it should be understood that the "Royal Charles" is not an introductory work to the history of the era.
Charles II emerges as a very admirable King in Fraser's book. He understand what his role was and what limitations were imposed to him. He acted courageously during the Great Fire of London. He loved his wife, his many mistresses and his numerous bastards. He promoted architecture, science, horse-racing and the building of parks. He preferred deceit to confrontation and was for religious toleration. His political judgement was superb. Fraser's conclusion is that Charles II was a veru good monarch who always reacted in the right way to events but one who lacked the "Nietzschean will' to transform his nation.
Fraser's book reads so well that one can forget about little of the context is explained. Fraser is clearly writing for a readership that knows English history very well. She refers to covenanters, Whigs and Puritans without explaining who they were or what their political agendas were. Fraser is so good as a narrator and describes people so well that most readers will never notice how little of the political manoeuvring they understand. Ultimately Fraser's choice to write about the man and those in his entourage rather more than the times that they lived is quite legitimate. However, it should be understood that the "Royal Charles" is not an introductory work to the history of the era.
August 20, 2025
Wit, Women and the Weight of a Crown
Veteran historian Lady Antonia Fraser’s Charles II is a richly detailed and engaging biography that brings to life one of England’s most fascinating and complex monarchs. Fraser captures both the drama of the Restoration court and the contradictions of Charles himself, portraying him as witty, pragmatic, charming, and at times elusive. She succeeds in balancing political narrative with personal detail, giving readers a sense not only of Charles’s role as king but also of the man behind the crown.
Fraser devotes considerable attention to Charles’s relationships with Parliament, his children, and his court. She demonstrates how he managed to restore a degree of stability after the upheaval of the Civil War and the rigid, oppressive years of the Commonwealth. The book also explores how Charles has often been remembered as the ‘Merry Monarch,’ a label Fraser firmly rejects. Instead, she presents a more measured view of a king whose reign was marked by both political compromises and personal complexities.
One of the central threads of the biography is the question of succession, an issue Charles himself largely chose to ignore despite its importance. Fraser also examines his controversial dealings with his cousin Louis XIV of France, from whom he accepted large bribes on the understanding that he would, at some unspecified point, declare himself a Catholic. This arrangement led many critics, then and since, to accuse Charles of lacking patriotism. Fraser, however, disputes this view: while acknowledging Charles’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism, she argues persuasively that he nevertheless loved England and the English people.
The book is accessible and easy to read in many respects. Fraser has a gift for weaving in vivid anecdotes and lively portraits of the people surrounding Charles, which makes the story feel immediate rather than a distant piece of history. Her descriptions of the Restoration period are full of colour, and she manages to set the broader European and religious context without overwhelming the reader with dry detail.
That said, the writing style is not always as smooth as it could be. At times the sentence structure feels oddly constructed, with a tendency toward long, winding passages that break the natural rhythm of the narrative. There are also moments where Fraser’s choice of words is unusual or unexpectedly formal, which can disrupt the flow and make certain sections feel more stilted than others. These stylistic quirks don’t ruin the experience, but they do create patches where the reading slows down unnecessarily.
Despite these occasional hurdles, Charles II remains a rewarding and insightful biography. Fraser’s research is thorough, and her ability to bring historical figures to life is undeniable. For readers interested in the Stuart monarchy, the Restoration era, or simply in exploring the life of a king who was both politically astute and personally enigmatic, this book is an excellent choice.
Veteran historian Lady Antonia Fraser’s Charles II is a richly detailed and engaging biography that brings to life one of England’s most fascinating and complex monarchs. Fraser captures both the drama of the Restoration court and the contradictions of Charles himself, portraying him as witty, pragmatic, charming, and at times elusive. She succeeds in balancing political narrative with personal detail, giving readers a sense not only of Charles’s role as king but also of the man behind the crown.
Fraser devotes considerable attention to Charles’s relationships with Parliament, his children, and his court. She demonstrates how he managed to restore a degree of stability after the upheaval of the Civil War and the rigid, oppressive years of the Commonwealth. The book also explores how Charles has often been remembered as the ‘Merry Monarch,’ a label Fraser firmly rejects. Instead, she presents a more measured view of a king whose reign was marked by both political compromises and personal complexities.
One of the central threads of the biography is the question of succession, an issue Charles himself largely chose to ignore despite its importance. Fraser also examines his controversial dealings with his cousin Louis XIV of France, from whom he accepted large bribes on the understanding that he would, at some unspecified point, declare himself a Catholic. This arrangement led many critics, then and since, to accuse Charles of lacking patriotism. Fraser, however, disputes this view: while acknowledging Charles’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism, she argues persuasively that he nevertheless loved England and the English people.
The book is accessible and easy to read in many respects. Fraser has a gift for weaving in vivid anecdotes and lively portraits of the people surrounding Charles, which makes the story feel immediate rather than a distant piece of history. Her descriptions of the Restoration period are full of colour, and she manages to set the broader European and religious context without overwhelming the reader with dry detail.
That said, the writing style is not always as smooth as it could be. At times the sentence structure feels oddly constructed, with a tendency toward long, winding passages that break the natural rhythm of the narrative. There are also moments where Fraser’s choice of words is unusual or unexpectedly formal, which can disrupt the flow and make certain sections feel more stilted than others. These stylistic quirks don’t ruin the experience, but they do create patches where the reading slows down unnecessarily.
Despite these occasional hurdles, Charles II remains a rewarding and insightful biography. Fraser’s research is thorough, and her ability to bring historical figures to life is undeniable. For readers interested in the Stuart monarchy, the Restoration era, or simply in exploring the life of a king who was both politically astute and personally enigmatic, this book is an excellent choice.
January 18, 2016
King Charles II may be the most “high and low” monarch in England’s history. Meaning, he suffered terribly with the beheading of his father, Civil War, exile, and the Great Fire. On the upside, he was restored and enjoyed courtly pleasures and mistresses. Antonia Fraser illuminates this ‘Merry Monarch’ in, “Royal Charles: Charles II and the Restoration”.
In traditional Fraser style, “Royal Charles” begins on a slow note in respect to the text featuring the surrounding atmosphere of Charles’s youth and hi s father Charles I versus a direct look at the future King. Many readers may even be enticed to skim these chapters until Part II (p. 81) if wanting to focus on Charles more in-depth. At this point, Charles comes to life and is much more in the foreground.
Fraser is the ‘Queen of Detail’ which is both a positive and a hindrance. The research is impeccable and astonishing when taken into consideration that “Royal Charles” was written before the ease of modern research. Yet, as in all of her works, Fraser strays from the main point often and tries to present the reader with every tidbit of information, ever. “Royal Charles” could have used a better editor to streamline the text.
Although “Royal Charles” is quite scholarly; there is an easy accessibility to the reading allowing for a steady pace. Fraser also avoids an over access of biases cluttering the text (although some personal opinions and overly descriptive/literary text is present).
“Royal Charles” is plumped up by some facts not mentioned elsewhere and the methodological debunking of myths displaying Fraser’s detective work and consequentially making “Royal Charles” more than just a rehashing of the history of Charles II. Although, the text could have used more of this stylized perspective.
A noticeable pattern in “Royal Charles” is Fraser’s penchant to follow a choppy discourse of discussing Stuart politics, into waxing poetic on Charles’s psyche, and then discussing household account books. Again, it seems that Fraser wanted to mention every bit of research that she herself discovered and didn’t know how to clear the viewfinder for the reader. This results in reader distraction and many slower moments within the text.
In the final chapters of “Royal Charles”, Fraser heartily and successfully concludes with solid information regarding the aftermath, lineage, and political events occurring during the last moments of Charles’s life. Particularly, the chapter describing the death of Charles is riveting, historically accurate, and tugs at the heart strings even as a nonfiction piece. The text then wraps up with Fraser mewing at Charles in a eulogy-type essay. Readers only interested in the pure history can skip this final chapter; however, it does provide a conclusive wrap-up.
Fraser includes a list of references and reference books while also infusing “Royal Charles” with two sections of photo plates.
“Royal Charles” is a very thoroughly researched and scholarly look at the reign of Charles II presented in typical Fraser style. The issue thereupon is merely that it is too much of a macro-view of Stuart politics and doesn’t truly bring Charles to light. The test is well-written but it simply doesn’t serve as a proper biography or portrait of this interesting Monarch. Despite this, “Royal Charles” is suggested for those readers interested in Charles II and Stuart England who must read everything about him because, sadly, there aren’t that many books out there.
In traditional Fraser style, “Royal Charles” begins on a slow note in respect to the text featuring the surrounding atmosphere of Charles’s youth and hi s father Charles I versus a direct look at the future King. Many readers may even be enticed to skim these chapters until Part II (p. 81) if wanting to focus on Charles more in-depth. At this point, Charles comes to life and is much more in the foreground.
Fraser is the ‘Queen of Detail’ which is both a positive and a hindrance. The research is impeccable and astonishing when taken into consideration that “Royal Charles” was written before the ease of modern research. Yet, as in all of her works, Fraser strays from the main point often and tries to present the reader with every tidbit of information, ever. “Royal Charles” could have used a better editor to streamline the text.
Although “Royal Charles” is quite scholarly; there is an easy accessibility to the reading allowing for a steady pace. Fraser also avoids an over access of biases cluttering the text (although some personal opinions and overly descriptive/literary text is present).
“Royal Charles” is plumped up by some facts not mentioned elsewhere and the methodological debunking of myths displaying Fraser’s detective work and consequentially making “Royal Charles” more than just a rehashing of the history of Charles II. Although, the text could have used more of this stylized perspective.
A noticeable pattern in “Royal Charles” is Fraser’s penchant to follow a choppy discourse of discussing Stuart politics, into waxing poetic on Charles’s psyche, and then discussing household account books. Again, it seems that Fraser wanted to mention every bit of research that she herself discovered and didn’t know how to clear the viewfinder for the reader. This results in reader distraction and many slower moments within the text.
In the final chapters of “Royal Charles”, Fraser heartily and successfully concludes with solid information regarding the aftermath, lineage, and political events occurring during the last moments of Charles’s life. Particularly, the chapter describing the death of Charles is riveting, historically accurate, and tugs at the heart strings even as a nonfiction piece. The text then wraps up with Fraser mewing at Charles in a eulogy-type essay. Readers only interested in the pure history can skip this final chapter; however, it does provide a conclusive wrap-up.
Fraser includes a list of references and reference books while also infusing “Royal Charles” with two sections of photo plates.
“Royal Charles” is a very thoroughly researched and scholarly look at the reign of Charles II presented in typical Fraser style. The issue thereupon is merely that it is too much of a macro-view of Stuart politics and doesn’t truly bring Charles to light. The test is well-written but it simply doesn’t serve as a proper biography or portrait of this interesting Monarch. Despite this, “Royal Charles” is suggested for those readers interested in Charles II and Stuart England who must read everything about him because, sadly, there aren’t that many books out there.
October 18, 2010
A very readable biography of a fascinating king, and a decent introduction to the politics and religious issues of the Restoration period.
The mini-series Charles II: The Power and the Passion (heavily edited and renamed The Last King in the US) appears to have been influenced by this book - Rufus Sewell mentions that he used the book as his guide for his portrayal of Charles. I enjoyed the series, although it's VERY annoying that an hour of footage appears to have been cut from the US version.
The mini-series Charles II: The Power and the Passion (heavily edited and renamed The Last King in the US) appears to have been influenced by this book - Rufus Sewell mentions that he used the book as his guide for his portrayal of Charles. I enjoyed the series, although it's VERY annoying that an hour of footage appears to have been cut from the US version.
February 4, 2016
It is a literary accomplishment to write a detailed and well-researched biography so that it reads like a rollicking piece of great fiction. Antonia Fraser’s, King Charles II is, like her other fabulous historical non-fiction works, such a book. In this wonderful and erudite tome, she tells the tale of a monarch who, against a backdrop of religious, political and cultural upheaval, dissent and change, rises above the conditions of his early childhood and the untimely and savage death of his father, Charles I, and consequent exile, to restore the monarchy and an uneasy peace to England.
Known as the “merry monarch” (among other less favourable appellations) and for being lazy, lustful, debauched, dissolute and inclined to petticoat government, Fraser presents a different picture of this rather marvellous and fascinating king. Born to loving parents, Charles was given all that a young royal should be: a good education, belief in himself and his family, an understanding of the important role he was set to inherit, and an awareness of the religion he must adopt as his own: the Anglicanism of his father as opposed to the Catholicism of his mother.
Protected from much of what was occurring in the realm and beyond its borders, the execution of his father was a shock. First challenging Oliver Cromwell and his troops, Charles is later forced to flee England. His unbelievable flight (Fraser describes this period of his life wonderfully, claiming the truth is better than much of the fiction – she is right) allows for the rise and ultimate rule of the Protector, Cromwell and the period known as the Interregnum. Homeless and dependent on the grudging charity of his Scottish vassals as well as various rulers across the continent for many years and the loyalty of committed (if few) royalists, Charles, as Fraser argues, could not help but be affected both by what he endured (poverty, dependence, hunger, pain) and witnessed in the lives of others. These experiences would remain with him for the rest of his life.
Restored to the English throne in 1660 and returning by invitation of the Parliament that was only recently the enemy of the monarchy, Charles determines to be an arbitrator. For all the goodwill and gratitude Charles has, the return of the king also inspires opposition. Describing the rise of the Whigs and the development of the Tories, Fraser paints a picture of a city (London) and of a country slowly tearing itself apart with political and religious discord and suspicion and a monarch seemingly helpless to prevent it. Only, as the author acknowledges, he isn’t helpless at all. Learning from his mistakes, Charles uses whatever in his power to delay what he feels are poor decisions or the pressure of the Commons. Proroguing parliament many, many times, he manages (mostly, but not always) to avoid catastrophic results; procrastinating (like Queen Elizabeth First) becomes a strategy to exert benign control, a practising of what Fraser terms “negative capability". It is a stroke of brilliance that allows Charles II to have his way without accusations of absolutism sticking.
Weathering the storms of anti-Catholic sentiment and various plots and accusations against the throne, particularly those delivered towards his immediate family, lovers, and favoured retainers, as well as enormous debt and an inability to repay it, Charles II also had a reputation as a seeker of pleasure and an irreverent ladies man. The father of his people, he was also father to 12 illegitimate children from different women – nobles, actresses, and gentry. In fact, the only woman with whom he had a long relationship and who did not produce a child was his wife, Catherine of Braganza – a tolerant and devout woman who stood by Charles even after his death.
A good, interested father, and a well-regarded lover, Fraser argues that far from using women, Charles II adored and respected them. Allowing women on stage for the first time in English history, and encouraging female playwrights such as Aphra Behn, women, according to Fraser, held a better position in the seventeenth century than they did in the nineteenth. But it wasn’t only women who piqued his insatiable interest, Charles also supported science, music, landscaping, building and, importantly, was the monarch who ruled throughout the Plague that decimated a quarter of London’s population in 1665, and earned the undying admiration of his people when he fought side by side with them during the Great Fire of 1666.
There was much to esteem about Charles II and, if it hadn’t been for his wheelings and dealings with his cousin, Louis XIV, from whom he was promised money ensuring he wasn’t dependent on parliament for the same, his record (disregarding morality) as a tolerant (he tried to introduce Bills to allow religious toleration, but such was the anti-papist sentiment in the country, the Commons and Lords wouldn’t pass it) would have been relatively unblemished. Relatively.
Certainly, the popularity of the king rose and fell according to various goings-on at home and abroad – war with the Dutch, religious persecution, accusations levelled against his brother and queen and the choler and sustained antagonism levelled against him by figures such as Shaftesbury who could stir up both the gentry and the masses.
Overall, however, Fraser tries (and succeeds) in persuading us that far from being a “merry” monarch, Charles II was melancholy, “cynical and dissimulating”. He was simply able to hide it well and present, especially in the first decades of his reign, a contented, “lazy” face. But she also describes him as “witty and kind, grateful, generous, tolerant, and essentially lovable, he was rightly mourned by his people…”
Beautifully written, impeccably researched, peppered with quotes from dramatists and poets of the age, as well as from Charles II himself and those nearest and dearest to him (such as his wife and his mistresses like Nelly Gwyn), we are given insights into the man “born the divided world to reconcile,” this is a book and life that is difficult to tear yourself away from.
For lovers of British history or just history; for those wanting an insight into the tumultuous Seventeenth Century and an oft misunderstood but charismatic ruler who formed a bridge between the Interregnum and the events leading to James II’s fall, as well as those that changed the world (from colonial expansion, trade and the beginnings of factories, never mind religious division and dissent), this is a terrific book by a marvellous historian and writer.
Known as the “merry monarch” (among other less favourable appellations) and for being lazy, lustful, debauched, dissolute and inclined to petticoat government, Fraser presents a different picture of this rather marvellous and fascinating king. Born to loving parents, Charles was given all that a young royal should be: a good education, belief in himself and his family, an understanding of the important role he was set to inherit, and an awareness of the religion he must adopt as his own: the Anglicanism of his father as opposed to the Catholicism of his mother.
Protected from much of what was occurring in the realm and beyond its borders, the execution of his father was a shock. First challenging Oliver Cromwell and his troops, Charles is later forced to flee England. His unbelievable flight (Fraser describes this period of his life wonderfully, claiming the truth is better than much of the fiction – she is right) allows for the rise and ultimate rule of the Protector, Cromwell and the period known as the Interregnum. Homeless and dependent on the grudging charity of his Scottish vassals as well as various rulers across the continent for many years and the loyalty of committed (if few) royalists, Charles, as Fraser argues, could not help but be affected both by what he endured (poverty, dependence, hunger, pain) and witnessed in the lives of others. These experiences would remain with him for the rest of his life.
Restored to the English throne in 1660 and returning by invitation of the Parliament that was only recently the enemy of the monarchy, Charles determines to be an arbitrator. For all the goodwill and gratitude Charles has, the return of the king also inspires opposition. Describing the rise of the Whigs and the development of the Tories, Fraser paints a picture of a city (London) and of a country slowly tearing itself apart with political and religious discord and suspicion and a monarch seemingly helpless to prevent it. Only, as the author acknowledges, he isn’t helpless at all. Learning from his mistakes, Charles uses whatever in his power to delay what he feels are poor decisions or the pressure of the Commons. Proroguing parliament many, many times, he manages (mostly, but not always) to avoid catastrophic results; procrastinating (like Queen Elizabeth First) becomes a strategy to exert benign control, a practising of what Fraser terms “negative capability". It is a stroke of brilliance that allows Charles II to have his way without accusations of absolutism sticking.
Weathering the storms of anti-Catholic sentiment and various plots and accusations against the throne, particularly those delivered towards his immediate family, lovers, and favoured retainers, as well as enormous debt and an inability to repay it, Charles II also had a reputation as a seeker of pleasure and an irreverent ladies man. The father of his people, he was also father to 12 illegitimate children from different women – nobles, actresses, and gentry. In fact, the only woman with whom he had a long relationship and who did not produce a child was his wife, Catherine of Braganza – a tolerant and devout woman who stood by Charles even after his death.
A good, interested father, and a well-regarded lover, Fraser argues that far from using women, Charles II adored and respected them. Allowing women on stage for the first time in English history, and encouraging female playwrights such as Aphra Behn, women, according to Fraser, held a better position in the seventeenth century than they did in the nineteenth. But it wasn’t only women who piqued his insatiable interest, Charles also supported science, music, landscaping, building and, importantly, was the monarch who ruled throughout the Plague that decimated a quarter of London’s population in 1665, and earned the undying admiration of his people when he fought side by side with them during the Great Fire of 1666.
There was much to esteem about Charles II and, if it hadn’t been for his wheelings and dealings with his cousin, Louis XIV, from whom he was promised money ensuring he wasn’t dependent on parliament for the same, his record (disregarding morality) as a tolerant (he tried to introduce Bills to allow religious toleration, but such was the anti-papist sentiment in the country, the Commons and Lords wouldn’t pass it) would have been relatively unblemished. Relatively.
Certainly, the popularity of the king rose and fell according to various goings-on at home and abroad – war with the Dutch, religious persecution, accusations levelled against his brother and queen and the choler and sustained antagonism levelled against him by figures such as Shaftesbury who could stir up both the gentry and the masses.
Overall, however, Fraser tries (and succeeds) in persuading us that far from being a “merry” monarch, Charles II was melancholy, “cynical and dissimulating”. He was simply able to hide it well and present, especially in the first decades of his reign, a contented, “lazy” face. But she also describes him as “witty and kind, grateful, generous, tolerant, and essentially lovable, he was rightly mourned by his people…”
Beautifully written, impeccably researched, peppered with quotes from dramatists and poets of the age, as well as from Charles II himself and those nearest and dearest to him (such as his wife and his mistresses like Nelly Gwyn), we are given insights into the man “born the divided world to reconcile,” this is a book and life that is difficult to tear yourself away from.
For lovers of British history or just history; for those wanting an insight into the tumultuous Seventeenth Century and an oft misunderstood but charismatic ruler who formed a bridge between the Interregnum and the events leading to James II’s fall, as well as those that changed the world (from colonial expansion, trade and the beginnings of factories, never mind religious division and dissent), this is a terrific book by a marvellous historian and writer.
November 4, 2019
This book is the most sympathetic of the 3 bios I read on Charles II, but I don't think it sacrifices objectivity or the backing of researh or a paper trail. (At the bottom of my review I have a link so you see the 3 different biographies -- all scholarly and worth reading.)
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
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
May 8, 2017
I have to admit that when I started this book I had no particular attraction to Charles II - I've always been way more interested in England's Queens, because I think they had a lot more to prove and so were generally bigger characters. But I had been reading Antonia Fraser's diaries about her life with Harold Pinter and had come to pretty much worship the ground she walks on. So when I saw this, her first big historical biography, in a second-hand bookshop in Northumberland I was visiting with my parents - I became convinced I was fated to read it.
I'm so glad I did.
The first part reads like an honest-to-God Hollywood movie. Charles grows up with a close, loving family who happen to English (and Scottish, technically) royalty and lives out his childhood in a sort of sun-dappled haze, which makes what comes next all the more brutal. I don't think it's spoiling anything to say that his father, Charles I, falls out with parliament and the civil war that breaks out culminates in his beheading (honestly, if you consider that a spoiler this book is not for you). The war lasted a lot longer than I realised, and by the end of it Charles II is an extremely dashing young man. He is 6'3, swarthy and Italian looking and a heroically brave soldier. The victorious Cromwell and his cronies aren't content with disposing of Charles I, they want to kill his son, Charles II too, to prevent him staging a rebellion and seizing the crown. Charles Jr then goes on the run (in his own country), hiding out with royalist allies, going undercover as a servant boy, and narrowly missing his would-be murderers by hiding in a tree. Charles's great escape to the continent is exciting stuff - it reminded me of the TV show Versailles, where the most shocking storylines are the ones that were actually true. So exciting, was the first third of the book, that I was able to forgive the rest being a mixed bag. It's not Fraser's fault, as a writer she is clear-headed but affectionate when it comes to her subject, and she uses just enough big words to give you the impression that you are bettering yourself by reading this, but not so many you feel like a dunce. I enjoyed learning about all of Charles's mistresses, who each were intriguing characters in their own right. I found his relationship with his wife, Catherine of Braganza interesting too - after some initial teething problems they had an unusual but ultimately successful marital arrangement. A large part of the book is dedicated to the matter of succession - everyone was completely obsessed with who would succeed Charles II. Because England at that time was pretty horrid to its Catholics (another long and drawn out subject within the book, though Charles was lovely and just wanted everyone to be able to live in peace with whatever religion they chose) a large section of the government were not into the idea of Charles's brother James, a converted Catholic and the rightful heir, succeeding the throne. So there were suggestions about Charles's reprobate bastard son Monmouth being legitimised, or drafting in his nephew William of Orange. There are many political tug-of-wars in the book, and I will be honest and say that they started to bore me a little, but history is history and you can't just leave out the dull bits. More satisfying was learning about Charles's relationships with his friends (so many good characters) and the touching bond he shared with his brother, with whom he fought with like only siblings can. In the end, what made this such a good read for me was Charles II himself. The 'Merry Monarch' was so much more than a figure of fun. He was smart and loyal and forgiving and human. When the Great Fire hit London he was out in the streets fighting it with his people. He restored joy to the country after a miserable, humourless Puritan reign (yeah, I'm not a Cromwell fan, I have to say). When I got to the last few chapters, I found myself crying in the run up to his death. That was about 400 pages pages in. This a long read but my word he is a man who can carry it.
I'm so glad I did.
The first part reads like an honest-to-God Hollywood movie. Charles grows up with a close, loving family who happen to English (and Scottish, technically) royalty and lives out his childhood in a sort of sun-dappled haze, which makes what comes next all the more brutal. I don't think it's spoiling anything to say that his father, Charles I, falls out with parliament and the civil war that breaks out culminates in his beheading (honestly, if you consider that a spoiler this book is not for you). The war lasted a lot longer than I realised, and by the end of it Charles II is an extremely dashing young man. He is 6'3, swarthy and Italian looking and a heroically brave soldier. The victorious Cromwell and his cronies aren't content with disposing of Charles I, they want to kill his son, Charles II too, to prevent him staging a rebellion and seizing the crown. Charles Jr then goes on the run (in his own country), hiding out with royalist allies, going undercover as a servant boy, and narrowly missing his would-be murderers by hiding in a tree. Charles's great escape to the continent is exciting stuff - it reminded me of the TV show Versailles, where the most shocking storylines are the ones that were actually true. So exciting, was the first third of the book, that I was able to forgive the rest being a mixed bag. It's not Fraser's fault, as a writer she is clear-headed but affectionate when it comes to her subject, and she uses just enough big words to give you the impression that you are bettering yourself by reading this, but not so many you feel like a dunce. I enjoyed learning about all of Charles's mistresses, who each were intriguing characters in their own right. I found his relationship with his wife, Catherine of Braganza interesting too - after some initial teething problems they had an unusual but ultimately successful marital arrangement. A large part of the book is dedicated to the matter of succession - everyone was completely obsessed with who would succeed Charles II. Because England at that time was pretty horrid to its Catholics (another long and drawn out subject within the book, though Charles was lovely and just wanted everyone to be able to live in peace with whatever religion they chose) a large section of the government were not into the idea of Charles's brother James, a converted Catholic and the rightful heir, succeeding the throne. So there were suggestions about Charles's reprobate bastard son Monmouth being legitimised, or drafting in his nephew William of Orange. There are many political tug-of-wars in the book, and I will be honest and say that they started to bore me a little, but history is history and you can't just leave out the dull bits. More satisfying was learning about Charles's relationships with his friends (so many good characters) and the touching bond he shared with his brother, with whom he fought with like only siblings can. In the end, what made this such a good read for me was Charles II himself. The 'Merry Monarch' was so much more than a figure of fun. He was smart and loyal and forgiving and human. When the Great Fire hit London he was out in the streets fighting it with his people. He restored joy to the country after a miserable, humourless Puritan reign (yeah, I'm not a Cromwell fan, I have to say). When I got to the last few chapters, I found myself crying in the run up to his death. That was about 400 pages pages in. This a long read but my word he is a man who can carry it.
July 5, 2013
A jolly good read! At a time when England was discovering tea, science, government and banking, Charles II lead a life out of a fairy tale. His father beheaded, his kingdom siezed, Charles was a warrior prince, a pauper in exile after a daring escape from England and finally, unexpectedly returned to his throne to open the golden age of The Restoration. A more extraordinary life cannot be imagined; a wise ruler, a loving father, a decent husband (despite his notorious mistresses and swarm of bastard children) He saw the plague and then a great fire destroy London. He deftly juggled the Byzantine politics of European wars and squabbling domestic religious zelotry. His life even ended with an extraordinary death bed religious conversion. His court was known for it's guilded excesses and pagentry yet Antonia Fraser reveals a wise and caring man who struggled to bring peace to his realm.
July 3, 2009
This is a very readable account of King Charles II. The ins and outs of British Royalty and politics can be hard to follow but the book lays it out pretty well. King Charles is a very interesting historical personage. If you want to understand English history, this is a great book. Antonia Fraser is a very good author.
May 22, 2012
Wow Wow Wow What a good book. The life of Charles II, mostly his political life. She definitely downplays the more sensational aspects. But that's okay, because presumably everyone already knows from all the other books. Very well done, I'm in tears here mourning Charlie's passing.
August 14, 2016
Not a bad book, but one showing it's age.
Well worth a read if you don't know much about Charles II.
Well worth a read if you don't know much about Charles II.
September 28, 2023
Charles II was born in 1630 to Henrietta Maria of France and Charles I. Charles II had a childhood marred by the First English Civil War, in which his father ultimately surrendered. During the Second English Civil War, Charles II found himself on the move again, and with an executed father. Charles II began his reign in 1660, and was coronated in 1661. His ascension to the throne led to the Anglo-Scottish War. He was also the reigning monarch during both the Great Plague of London and the Great Fire of London, which I was not aware of before reading this. Or if I was aware of it, I forgot about it. Charles married Catherine of Braganza in 1662. He was notoriously unfaithful, having several mistresses and illegitimate children, while having no legitimate children with his wife. Charles II was involved in a lot of things, including plenty of disputes with Parliament over various things. He was also interested in science, which a lot of people found wildly inappropriate. As a matter of fact, some modern historians believe that his death was related to mercury poisoning which he had been handling/exposed to just prior to his death. Of course, other people believe he was deliberately poisoned since he wasn't super well thought of by a lot of people. This book contained such a detailed representation of his life and activities, I actually used this as a reference in a paper I had to write.
I got this book at the used bookstore for a dollar, and apparently this edition is out of print. That was a nice find for me, as it sells for considerably more on Amazon. We all know that I genuinely enjoy Antonia Fraser and her work, but I do like to be fair in my reviews. I am rating this book highly due to the content, research, and writing style that I enjoy, despite some small issues. Here is the thing, I have read SEVERAL reviews that drag this book and Antonia Fraser for writing a biased book. Her research, as always, was terrifically done. I can see that she did want to portray Charles II in a more favorable light by focusing on the better things that he did and experienced. I know that I saw one review, specifically, going on about how she didn't trash talk him for having a bunch of illegitimate children and not being able to keep his weenie in his pantaloons. It is RARE for a monarch to be monogamous and not have at least one mistress and illegitimate child, as we see time and again in historical biographies. I'm failing to see why this was such a shock or why someone should write an entire book based on his indiscretions without mentioning any important events that he was associated with. I do think it could have used a bit more focus on some of the negative things, but it wasn't overly biased in my opinion. We all know that historical figures are human beings, thus are imperfect and often get up to shenanagins. Him cheating on his wife and having a bunch of kids with other women is not the worst thing he did and I am not sure why that is the hyperfocus instead of some of the policies he supported. Come on, now.
As an aside, I cannot stand the current King Charles III, however, I am not sure I would have taken on Charles III as my kingly name after all the bad history associated with it. Perhaps he can keep himself from facing an execution or possibly mercury poisoning like his similarly named cohorts...
I got this book at the used bookstore for a dollar, and apparently this edition is out of print. That was a nice find for me, as it sells for considerably more on Amazon. We all know that I genuinely enjoy Antonia Fraser and her work, but I do like to be fair in my reviews. I am rating this book highly due to the content, research, and writing style that I enjoy, despite some small issues. Here is the thing, I have read SEVERAL reviews that drag this book and Antonia Fraser for writing a biased book. Her research, as always, was terrifically done. I can see that she did want to portray Charles II in a more favorable light by focusing on the better things that he did and experienced. I know that I saw one review, specifically, going on about how she didn't trash talk him for having a bunch of illegitimate children and not being able to keep his weenie in his pantaloons. It is RARE for a monarch to be monogamous and not have at least one mistress and illegitimate child, as we see time and again in historical biographies. I'm failing to see why this was such a shock or why someone should write an entire book based on his indiscretions without mentioning any important events that he was associated with. I do think it could have used a bit more focus on some of the negative things, but it wasn't overly biased in my opinion. We all know that historical figures are human beings, thus are imperfect and often get up to shenanagins. Him cheating on his wife and having a bunch of kids with other women is not the worst thing he did and I am not sure why that is the hyperfocus instead of some of the policies he supported. Come on, now.
As an aside, I cannot stand the current King Charles III, however, I am not sure I would have taken on Charles III as my kingly name after all the bad history associated with it. Perhaps he can keep himself from facing an execution or possibly mercury poisoning like his similarly named cohorts...
September 30, 2025
I recognised Fraser's name from somewhere when I picked up this book, but couldn't put my finger on exactly where until perhaps a couple of days later. I realised that I had read one of her later books before, The Six Wives of Henry VIII - which I believed was a really great work. She is in fact a prolific writer on the English monarchy, with a talent for great readability and research ethics. So I began King Charles II with a sense of assurance.
My interests in history tend to gravitate towards the ordinary people rather than the big figures, monarchy and government, so on. However, if you are interested in a particular era of time, it is vital that you understand the world of these big figures themselves. Ultimately, their role is to influence how the everyday operates. The Stuart period is one I am particularly interested in, so of course I already knew a fair amount about Charles II, but then again, not enough to be at all satisfied. That puts me in a slightly awkward position as a reviewer of a historical work, as I admittedly can't decipher the accuracy of the biography. Also, given that it was published just under 50 years ago, I am not sure if there have been any new fantastic developments or discoveries.
Nevertheless, we shall push on. I think this was a great, professional book to get a complete and comprehensive overview of his life, and it was particularly interesting to read the arguments against his image as the 'Merry Monarch', which is still widely disseminated - something I would personally like to dive into more deeply. Fraser takes us through a fruitful path, beginning with birth and ending with death, but meeting many vital characters and events along the way. From the execution of his father, to the lives of his mistresses, and his relationship with Protestantism vs Catholicism, everything is considered with a disciplined mind.
Speaking of the mistresses, looking at how Fraser discusses them is in fact a strange but convincing method, among many more orthodox ones, of figuring out the quality of her work. The topic of royal mistresses is often sensationalised and capitalised on for the leering and curious public, but Fraser's voice always offers a refreshing and insightful commentary without resorting to the shock stories that many Charles II biographers are inclined to. In fact, this is a little bit insulting to Fraser to insinuate that these attitudes would ever cross into her writing. As I mentioned initially, she always remains balanced and professional.
My interests in history tend to gravitate towards the ordinary people rather than the big figures, monarchy and government, so on. However, if you are interested in a particular era of time, it is vital that you understand the world of these big figures themselves. Ultimately, their role is to influence how the everyday operates. The Stuart period is one I am particularly interested in, so of course I already knew a fair amount about Charles II, but then again, not enough to be at all satisfied. That puts me in a slightly awkward position as a reviewer of a historical work, as I admittedly can't decipher the accuracy of the biography. Also, given that it was published just under 50 years ago, I am not sure if there have been any new fantastic developments or discoveries.
Nevertheless, we shall push on. I think this was a great, professional book to get a complete and comprehensive overview of his life, and it was particularly interesting to read the arguments against his image as the 'Merry Monarch', which is still widely disseminated - something I would personally like to dive into more deeply. Fraser takes us through a fruitful path, beginning with birth and ending with death, but meeting many vital characters and events along the way. From the execution of his father, to the lives of his mistresses, and his relationship with Protestantism vs Catholicism, everything is considered with a disciplined mind.
Speaking of the mistresses, looking at how Fraser discusses them is in fact a strange but convincing method, among many more orthodox ones, of figuring out the quality of her work. The topic of royal mistresses is often sensationalised and capitalised on for the leering and curious public, but Fraser's voice always offers a refreshing and insightful commentary without resorting to the shock stories that many Charles II biographers are inclined to. In fact, this is a little bit insulting to Fraser to insinuate that these attitudes would ever cross into her writing. As I mentioned initially, she always remains balanced and professional.
July 18, 2025
To say that this book was a labour of love for author Antonia Fraser would be somewhat of an understatement. The enthusiasm and love for her chosen subject, King Charles II positively bursts forth from the pages of the book, radiating out, touching and infecting everyone and everything holding court with this thoroughly detailed historical biography.
The adoration the author lavishes on the seventeenth century monarch does sometimes come across as sycophantic and blinkered, but when she does touch on some of Charles Stewart's faults, something which you sense she does wholly begrudgingly, the sensible course, I'd imagine, would be to presume that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Even given the author's partisan views on King Charles II, and my schoolboy amusement of toilet humour, some may have considered that telling us, in detail, that the restored monarch was 'well endowed', a bit OTT! Yes, mentioning the King's large penis, or indeed even the rumour of such an appendage, at any rate, certainly made me guffaw out loud, but was it entirely necessary to state,
The King's mistress (one of many!), Barbra Castlemaine, who certainly knows what she is talking about - confided to a friend that the King was exceptionally well endowed physically to make love.
A fact expressed by Rochester in these lines:
"Nor are his high desires above his strength,
His sceptre and his ____ are of a length!"
Go on then, aye, it certainly was worth hearing haha!
Charles II certainly knew how to wield that particular power too. He had twelve recognised bastard children that lived beyond childhood with his many mistresses. It was remarked that the Restoration King was 'father to the people', which was something the pamphleteers had fun and many a pun with, and even his own brother, The Duke of York caustically observed that, ”His brother had fathered a great many of them personally!"
And is it any wonder, the son of Charles the Martyr loved horse racing? The deathbed Catholic convert probably felt like a kindred spirit to horses, given he was allegedly hung like one!
The book was mercifully also written in contemporary language for the most part, and the author used extremely relatable examples when describing and envisioning how things must have felt to some degree, back in the seventeenth century, for example she likened the period of irrational persecution of the Catholics, by somewhat myopic Protestants, to that of 'Reds' in McCarthyite America. All really helping to get to grips with the period.
I also enjoy 'character spotting' people from historical fiction novels from that era that I've read and took a great deal of pleasure from, for instance, Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington, William Chiffinch, King's Keeper of the Closet and duplicitous popinjay, The Duke of Buckingham, whom all feature heavily in Andrew Taylor's wonderful Marwood and Lovett series. I found myself superimposing the character’s personalities from those books to here, but in truth, besides a bit more detail, Taylor, particularly with the Machiavellian intriguer, The Duke of Buckingham, seems to have been pretty much on the mark!
We also had that word, 'blade' pop up again haha, in the context of a certain type of person (see my reviews of 'The English Civil War: A People's History', 'Down Cemetery Road' and 'Revel, Riot and Rebellion'). Here, the quote is,
'People of rank took their pleasures as they found them, and made no secret of their practices because they saw no harm in them. Is it not a frank age? Asked the young blade Sparkish in Wycherley's 'The Country Life''
That particular word is now becoming so common, I may have to stop pointing out its use! Regardless of how amusing I find such trivialities.
I also found it a bit harsh when the author described Charles I's first born child, whom was born and died in May 1629, as a 'weakling'! He may well have been a weak baby, but I don't suppose he could really have helped that much, and to describe him as such, I felt was a bit severe and a tad egregious on the author's part!
So, all in all, a solid piece of writing and most definitely a labour of love, which radiates out from the pages. It does get a bit turgid about three quarters of the way in, but pulls itself up again towards the end, on the death of King Charles II. A fascinating period in history to which author, Antonia Fraser, assuredly brings to life and gives it some throbbing Royal gristle, if not some justice for the cursed Stewart clan. Historical facts, told with more than a little panache, righted wrongs, expressed with a great deal of conviction and juicy Restoration gossip, bringing up a salacious rear! The King is dead! Long live the King!
The adoration the author lavishes on the seventeenth century monarch does sometimes come across as sycophantic and blinkered, but when she does touch on some of Charles Stewart's faults, something which you sense she does wholly begrudgingly, the sensible course, I'd imagine, would be to presume that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Even given the author's partisan views on King Charles II, and my schoolboy amusement of toilet humour, some may have considered that telling us, in detail, that the restored monarch was 'well endowed', a bit OTT! Yes, mentioning the King's large penis, or indeed even the rumour of such an appendage, at any rate, certainly made me guffaw out loud, but was it entirely necessary to state,
The King's mistress (one of many!), Barbra Castlemaine, who certainly knows what she is talking about - confided to a friend that the King was exceptionally well endowed physically to make love.
A fact expressed by Rochester in these lines:
"Nor are his high desires above his strength,
His sceptre and his ____ are of a length!"
Go on then, aye, it certainly was worth hearing haha!
Charles II certainly knew how to wield that particular power too. He had twelve recognised bastard children that lived beyond childhood with his many mistresses. It was remarked that the Restoration King was 'father to the people', which was something the pamphleteers had fun and many a pun with, and even his own brother, The Duke of York caustically observed that, ”His brother had fathered a great many of them personally!"
And is it any wonder, the son of Charles the Martyr loved horse racing? The deathbed Catholic convert probably felt like a kindred spirit to horses, given he was allegedly hung like one!
The book was mercifully also written in contemporary language for the most part, and the author used extremely relatable examples when describing and envisioning how things must have felt to some degree, back in the seventeenth century, for example she likened the period of irrational persecution of the Catholics, by somewhat myopic Protestants, to that of 'Reds' in McCarthyite America. All really helping to get to grips with the period.
I also enjoy 'character spotting' people from historical fiction novels from that era that I've read and took a great deal of pleasure from, for instance, Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington, William Chiffinch, King's Keeper of the Closet and duplicitous popinjay, The Duke of Buckingham, whom all feature heavily in Andrew Taylor's wonderful Marwood and Lovett series. I found myself superimposing the character’s personalities from those books to here, but in truth, besides a bit more detail, Taylor, particularly with the Machiavellian intriguer, The Duke of Buckingham, seems to have been pretty much on the mark!
We also had that word, 'blade' pop up again haha, in the context of a certain type of person (see my reviews of 'The English Civil War: A People's History', 'Down Cemetery Road' and 'Revel, Riot and Rebellion'). Here, the quote is,
'People of rank took their pleasures as they found them, and made no secret of their practices because they saw no harm in them. Is it not a frank age? Asked the young blade Sparkish in Wycherley's 'The Country Life''
That particular word is now becoming so common, I may have to stop pointing out its use! Regardless of how amusing I find such trivialities.
I also found it a bit harsh when the author described Charles I's first born child, whom was born and died in May 1629, as a 'weakling'! He may well have been a weak baby, but I don't suppose he could really have helped that much, and to describe him as such, I felt was a bit severe and a tad egregious on the author's part!
So, all in all, a solid piece of writing and most definitely a labour of love, which radiates out from the pages. It does get a bit turgid about three quarters of the way in, but pulls itself up again towards the end, on the death of King Charles II. A fascinating period in history to which author, Antonia Fraser, assuredly brings to life and gives it some throbbing Royal gristle, if not some justice for the cursed Stewart clan. Historical facts, told with more than a little panache, righted wrongs, expressed with a great deal of conviction and juicy Restoration gossip, bringing up a salacious rear! The King is dead! Long live the King!
September 28, 2022
This was a very interesting and informative read. It spans from Charles I's reign through the troubled times of Cromwell and hints at what happened upon the death of Charles II.
At times I got the feeling that it probably glossed over events that would have been interesting to know in greater depth. The development of the American colonies that must have happened then is barely talked about Quakers get a mention but Puritans, barely. Events closer to home are mentioned; life at court, some idea of how life was for normal citizens, even the King's personally taking part in trying to put out the Great Fire of London of 1666. Certainly the style is warmer, more readable than, for example, John H. Elliott's biography of the Count-Duke of Olivares (great read but rather dry on what the people where doing in their daily lives while the court of Phillip IV of Spain did what it did).
This all said, it is a recommendable book as it dispells certain tropes that needed dispelling, but now I want to contrast it by reading other books about Charles II, and others I have by the author, namely her biography of Oliver Cromwell and from a different period, her biography of Marie Antoinette.
At times I got the feeling that it probably glossed over events that would have been interesting to know in greater depth. The development of the American colonies that must have happened then is barely talked about Quakers get a mention but Puritans, barely. Events closer to home are mentioned; life at court, some idea of how life was for normal citizens, even the King's personally taking part in trying to put out the Great Fire of London of 1666. Certainly the style is warmer, more readable than, for example, John H. Elliott's biography of the Count-Duke of Olivares (great read but rather dry on what the people where doing in their daily lives while the court of Phillip IV of Spain did what it did).
This all said, it is a recommendable book as it dispells certain tropes that needed dispelling, but now I want to contrast it by reading other books about Charles II, and others I have by the author, namely her biography of Oliver Cromwell and from a different period, her biography of Marie Antoinette.
February 9, 2020
"Read" or, rather, "gave up on."
I liked Fraser's "Mary Queen of Scots" and since then have been working thru English royalty in order, by various authors. After reading bio's of James I and Charles I, the next topic was to be Fraser's "Cromwell," but I couldn't get far before abandoning that book -- just too tedious, with way more details then I wanted.
Next in line was Charles II, and I was glad to see Fraser had a bio. Charles II seems like such a colorful character and I was eager to learn about the Restoration. But the writing is so hard to get thru. There are *so* many details. And the text is so tiny that I'm getting eye strain. Can't do this for 469 pages.
I made it to Page 34 with glassy eyes and quit. Will look for other bio's of Charles II, and maybe try some documentaries.
I liked Fraser's "Mary Queen of Scots" and since then have been working thru English royalty in order, by various authors. After reading bio's of James I and Charles I, the next topic was to be Fraser's "Cromwell," but I couldn't get far before abandoning that book -- just too tedious, with way more details then I wanted.
Next in line was Charles II, and I was glad to see Fraser had a bio. Charles II seems like such a colorful character and I was eager to learn about the Restoration. But the writing is so hard to get thru. There are *so* many details. And the text is so tiny that I'm getting eye strain. Can't do this for 469 pages.
I made it to Page 34 with glassy eyes and quit. Will look for other bio's of Charles II, and maybe try some documentaries.
May 17, 2025
Antonia Frasier gives very lucid and adroit rendering of the man and reign of King Charles 2nd. Easy to read and follow, yet still maintains a very sophisticated and learned manner throughout. Only the political and later parts can drag a bit, but Frasier usually keeps a good narrative/ personal tone on through these portions so they are not too difficult to read or follow. Can’t recommend a better introduction or starting place for anyone interested in the times and culture of Restoration Britain.
June 19, 2024
Antonia Fraser’s biographies are always readable and this one charts the restoration of the monarchy and the ongoing disputes with parliament. Religion remained controversial and Charles II ensured his Catholic brother James II could succeed him but this culminated in the Glorious Revolution which resonates in Ireland to this day.
June 26, 2021
Lady Fraser is a great biography writer. I did not know about Restoration time and this book gave me a huge load of information. King Charles II was a very brave man and he would had been a great father.
November 16, 2021
As always, Antonia Fraser writes a grand biography full of interesting facts and sources! The life of Charles II is written down beautifully and cleverly that will interest all those who want to know more about King Charles II and the events surrounding his life.
February 27, 2022
Antonia Fraser tells a gossipy history of Charles II and of the English Restoration. I honestly did not enjoy the writing style, but the information was good and I was uninformed of the time period in general before reading this.
August 21, 2023
4.0 / 5.0
Well written. Easy to follow and detailed.
Somewhat inconsistent in evaluation of King's Character. Goes to great length establishing King was not so culpable then proves herself wrong.
Well written. Easy to follow and detailed.
Somewhat inconsistent in evaluation of King's Character. Goes to great length establishing King was not so culpable then proves herself wrong.
December 17, 2017
what an amazing life he led. Wow this is a great read.
April 19, 2019
Loved King Charles II / a colorful, vibrant King. I did not know much about him until this book ; it really upped my knowledge of the Restoration period.
November 30, 2020
Dense and thoroughly researched, yet not as dazzling as the author's more recent works.
May 8, 2021
Quite a marathon, but well worth it, for anyone interested in understanding the ‘trickle-down’ effect of actions, attitudes, prejudices and politics.
December 8, 2023
Heavy stuff, very informative as you'd expect from Fraser but can get somewhat confusing over 600 pages if you're not aware of the context to Charles II's reign. Overall though an excellent book!
March 23, 2024
"Restless he rolls from whore to whore,
A merry monarch, scandalous and poor."
A merry monarch, scandalous and poor."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews