What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last English King
On the Sussex Downs in 1066, the psychotic William and his gang of European mercenaries began the process which fragmented a civilisation. Walt, the last of King Harold's bodyguard, the one who survived Hastings, wanders across Asia Minor in the company of Quint, an intellectual renegade monk. On the way he unfolds the events that led up to the battle which affected the destinies of every English man and woman. With rare skill, Rathbone vividly recreates a civilisation that stubbornly remains alive in the collective memory to this day, and so identifies the roots of the still-held belief that every English person is born free and should stay free. Tender romance, savage war, courtly intrigue and some wry humour combine to make THE LAST ENGLISH KING an exhilarating roller-coaster ride into our past.
381 pages, Paperback
First published December 4, 1997
77 people are currently reading
1296 people want to read
About the author
Julian Rathbone
68 books24 followersJulian Christopher Rathbone was born in 1935 in Blackheath, southeast London. His great-uncle was the actor and great Sherlock Holmes interpreter Basil Rathbone, although they never met.
The prolific author Julian Rathbone was a writer of crime stories, mysteries and thrillers who also turned his hand to the historical novel, science fiction and even horror — and much of his writing had strong political and social dimensions.
He was difficult to pigeonhole because his scope was so broad. Arguably, his experiment with different genres and thus his refusal to be typecast cost him a wider audience than he enjoyed. Just as his subject matter changed markedly over the years, so too did his readers and his publishers.
Among his more than 40 books two were shortlisted for the Booker Prize for Fiction. Both were historical novels: first King Fisher Lives, a taut adventure revolving around a guru figure, in 1976, and, secondly, Joseph, set during the Peninsular War and written in an 18th-century prose style, in 1979. But Rathbone never quite made it into the wider public consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_R...
The prolific author Julian Rathbone was a writer of crime stories, mysteries and thrillers who also turned his hand to the historical novel, science fiction and even horror — and much of his writing had strong political and social dimensions.
He was difficult to pigeonhole because his scope was so broad. Arguably, his experiment with different genres and thus his refusal to be typecast cost him a wider audience than he enjoyed. Just as his subject matter changed markedly over the years, so too did his readers and his publishers.
Among his more than 40 books two were shortlisted for the Booker Prize for Fiction. Both were historical novels: first King Fisher Lives, a taut adventure revolving around a guru figure, in 1976, and, secondly, Joseph, set during the Peninsular War and written in an 18th-century prose style, in 1979. But Rathbone never quite made it into the wider public consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_R...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
January 17, 2024
‘No memory of pain is as unbearable as the actual pain of remembering the happiness one has lost.’
A romp of a read. Story told by Walt, one of King Harold’s bodyguards devastated by the fact he failed to protect his boss. Joined on his journey to Asia by Quint and Taillefer the magician who was close to William of Normandy.
Rich characters and story. Having no real knowledge of this century or the events leading to 1066. This book filled the gaps nicely.
A romp of a read. Story told by Walt, one of King Harold’s bodyguards devastated by the fact he failed to protect his boss. Joined on his journey to Asia by Quint and Taillefer the magician who was close to William of Normandy.
Rich characters and story. Having no real knowledge of this century or the events leading to 1066. This book filled the gaps nicely.
December 18, 2012
First: vividly written, feelingly, very high on ‘reality-sense’, atmosphere and peoplehood. With that, creative, unusual, and determined not to be your ordinary histfic. Also, fantastic writing. I didn’t skip once, through boredom with a description or thinking I know what the author’s going to tell me {or not until the idyll near the end. Right, I skipped once}. He knows how to craft a place-description so that even I, a poor visualiser, see. His description of people – and there I’m an aficionado – is super. He’s a student of gesture, an expert in body-language.
The early part is soaked in mood and the humanhood of Walt and Quint, whose journey together was the heart for me and knits the narrative: two odd travellers, cast out of life, in a way, in different ways. Their accidental friendship, very gently stated, is a joy. From there we look back on Walt’s past as a companion-in-arms to Harold, loser of the Battle of Hastings; while we travel to Constantinople and on through the Near East, see the world, the state of the world and discuss the future, too.
Walt’s nostalgia for Old (Anglo-Saxon) England is critiqued by Quint, and that nostalgia/critique goes on throughout the novel. I gave up English history years ago and had to brush up for this – not on the history so much as on perceptions of that history. Because I know he’s in a game with perceptions. The lines, I learn, are drawn thus: either England needed that vigorous Norman injection, or else England was an ideal place once, before the Normans came. I imagine that Julian Rathbone, being the sort of writer he is, addresses the historiography, the way history has been written, in ways that go over my head. If he deconstructs the characters of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror, I wouldn’t know – I don’t know what the image of them is. I can sense he’s engaging with interpretations of history but I’m not his audience there. I hear he upset people with his portrayals, and I’ll egg him on with that. In his author’s note he says William ‘saw to it that history was written the way he wanted it written’, and in the histories I know more about, I am only too aware that happens – and that propaganda then lasts down to the present day. Propaganda seems ineradicable, once in the record. I like his conscious tackling of our records of history. It’s a job historical fiction ought to do more often.
To this end he uses his anachronisms. He talks about them, too, in his author’s note: aside from the amusement, anachronism ‘serves a more serious purpose – to place the few years spanned by the book in a continuum which leads forward as well as back, to remind readers, especially English readers, that it was out of all this that we came.’ At commencement I thought that lame and wished he’d gone ahead and not tried to excuse himself. Later I started to see what he meant. After I’d read, for background, about 19thC heavyweight historians who have influenced our view of the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans. Because of that he’s not just writing about the 11th century. The anachronisms are often called arch, and I do laugh but if they were only for amusement I’d slam him. Quint quotes Yeats on Byzantium and what does that mean? That Yeats hit the nail on the head about Byzantium? I don’t know, but I enjoy the challenge to me, the ‘what does that mean?’
Edward the Confessor is a sad old soul. We first meet him as he faces the news he has six months to live, which helps our sympathy. He’s no hero and he’s no saint... they promise him sainthood, for political ends, and his kingship ends as his kingship began, used and abused. In the beginning, the thug of England Godwin set his ‘cock-quean’ son Tostig onto him, to entrammel him; after the Godwins change their policy and mangle that affair, he’s celibate for the rest of his life. As a king, even as a Norman-influenced king, he believes in non-interference: he sees that Anglo-Saxon England works. He is exhorted to make things more continental but he resists that pressure – even if he must enlist the Normans against the thuggish Godwins. I felt for Edward and he wasn’t such a bad old king. England blossoms under him.
Nostalgia seems to have won the argument by now and Anglo-Saxon England is/was a fairer, kinder, quieter place – even though its own politics has led to the crisis that lets the Normans in. The Witan is great, except the families in power determine what happens there. Harold knows he doesn’t need to be king – he runs England, like his father before him.
Nevertheless, after Harold visits the Normans, when he tries to tell the English what they have to lose – what Englishness is and won’t be – you believe in the urgency of his fight. When Walt tells the charcoal-burners, relicts of ancient inhabitants, who aren’t English, what their lives will be under the Normans. Will be, since we know the Normans win. What’s given as Norman is the later medieval system with its order, its suppression of disorder. Fair enough. Always thought I’d rather live in the 8th century than the 13th. A novelist takes sides, but – see beneath, for what the author has to say on that.
I like that he cares about societies before and after, that he cares what happened in history, even in 1066. If that’s writing with a political commitment, then – go ahead. Ancient fights for freedom, that lost and lost freedoms for us... there were others, and we need to care. If you care about your liberties now, let’s study the history.
William the Conqueror is Hitleresque. At first you think he’s a lampoon, but then Hitler looks like a lampoon. Soon the description is that of a serious psychopath. The word is used. Invented for him by Quint, who invents words, and Freudian psychology, such as I used to read about Hitler. So he was the Hitler of the day: how to get that across to us? Invoke Him, our equivalent. But Quint wants to talk about psychopathy, to us, across the distance, and he claims the right. He’s seen it. It’s just a matter of words. Perhaps Quint is a time-traveller. I’ll stop here as I’m rambling. I welcome his experiments.
Harold is decent but underdrawn. More might have been made of how he fits or doesn’t in his gangster family. Conveniently, the two brothers left to fight Hastings with him are also decent, much unlike the other brothers gone.
I read an interview with Julian Rathbone on the web – http://www.twbooks.co.uk/crimescene/R... – where he argues for a self-conscious historical fiction that knows it has an ideology or an agenda. Because every historical fiction does. Better – more honest – for that not to be unconscious in the writer. Perfectly true.
The early part is soaked in mood and the humanhood of Walt and Quint, whose journey together was the heart for me and knits the narrative: two odd travellers, cast out of life, in a way, in different ways. Their accidental friendship, very gently stated, is a joy. From there we look back on Walt’s past as a companion-in-arms to Harold, loser of the Battle of Hastings; while we travel to Constantinople and on through the Near East, see the world, the state of the world and discuss the future, too.
Walt’s nostalgia for Old (Anglo-Saxon) England is critiqued by Quint, and that nostalgia/critique goes on throughout the novel. I gave up English history years ago and had to brush up for this – not on the history so much as on perceptions of that history. Because I know he’s in a game with perceptions. The lines, I learn, are drawn thus: either England needed that vigorous Norman injection, or else England was an ideal place once, before the Normans came. I imagine that Julian Rathbone, being the sort of writer he is, addresses the historiography, the way history has been written, in ways that go over my head. If he deconstructs the characters of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror, I wouldn’t know – I don’t know what the image of them is. I can sense he’s engaging with interpretations of history but I’m not his audience there. I hear he upset people with his portrayals, and I’ll egg him on with that. In his author’s note he says William ‘saw to it that history was written the way he wanted it written’, and in the histories I know more about, I am only too aware that happens – and that propaganda then lasts down to the present day. Propaganda seems ineradicable, once in the record. I like his conscious tackling of our records of history. It’s a job historical fiction ought to do more often.
To this end he uses his anachronisms. He talks about them, too, in his author’s note: aside from the amusement, anachronism ‘serves a more serious purpose – to place the few years spanned by the book in a continuum which leads forward as well as back, to remind readers, especially English readers, that it was out of all this that we came.’ At commencement I thought that lame and wished he’d gone ahead and not tried to excuse himself. Later I started to see what he meant. After I’d read, for background, about 19thC heavyweight historians who have influenced our view of the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans. Because of that he’s not just writing about the 11th century. The anachronisms are often called arch, and I do laugh but if they were only for amusement I’d slam him. Quint quotes Yeats on Byzantium and what does that mean? That Yeats hit the nail on the head about Byzantium? I don’t know, but I enjoy the challenge to me, the ‘what does that mean?’
Edward the Confessor is a sad old soul. We first meet him as he faces the news he has six months to live, which helps our sympathy. He’s no hero and he’s no saint... they promise him sainthood, for political ends, and his kingship ends as his kingship began, used and abused. In the beginning, the thug of England Godwin set his ‘cock-quean’ son Tostig onto him, to entrammel him; after the Godwins change their policy and mangle that affair, he’s celibate for the rest of his life. As a king, even as a Norman-influenced king, he believes in non-interference: he sees that Anglo-Saxon England works. He is exhorted to make things more continental but he resists that pressure – even if he must enlist the Normans against the thuggish Godwins. I felt for Edward and he wasn’t such a bad old king. England blossoms under him.
Nostalgia seems to have won the argument by now and Anglo-Saxon England is/was a fairer, kinder, quieter place – even though its own politics has led to the crisis that lets the Normans in. The Witan is great, except the families in power determine what happens there. Harold knows he doesn’t need to be king – he runs England, like his father before him.
Nevertheless, after Harold visits the Normans, when he tries to tell the English what they have to lose – what Englishness is and won’t be – you believe in the urgency of his fight. When Walt tells the charcoal-burners, relicts of ancient inhabitants, who aren’t English, what their lives will be under the Normans. Will be, since we know the Normans win. What’s given as Norman is the later medieval system with its order, its suppression of disorder. Fair enough. Always thought I’d rather live in the 8th century than the 13th. A novelist takes sides, but – see beneath, for what the author has to say on that.
I like that he cares about societies before and after, that he cares what happened in history, even in 1066. If that’s writing with a political commitment, then – go ahead. Ancient fights for freedom, that lost and lost freedoms for us... there were others, and we need to care. If you care about your liberties now, let’s study the history.
William the Conqueror is Hitleresque. At first you think he’s a lampoon, but then Hitler looks like a lampoon. Soon the description is that of a serious psychopath. The word is used. Invented for him by Quint, who invents words, and Freudian psychology, such as I used to read about Hitler. So he was the Hitler of the day: how to get that across to us? Invoke Him, our equivalent. But Quint wants to talk about psychopathy, to us, across the distance, and he claims the right. He’s seen it. It’s just a matter of words. Perhaps Quint is a time-traveller. I’ll stop here as I’m rambling. I welcome his experiments.
Harold is decent but underdrawn. More might have been made of how he fits or doesn’t in his gangster family. Conveniently, the two brothers left to fight Hastings with him are also decent, much unlike the other brothers gone.
I read an interview with Julian Rathbone on the web – http://www.twbooks.co.uk/crimescene/R... – where he argues for a self-conscious historical fiction that knows it has an ideology or an agenda. Because every historical fiction does. Better – more honest – for that not to be unconscious in the writer. Perfectly true.
March 6, 2015
I have been seriously bogged down with this book. It started out so good but then went off the rails and never picked up again.
Quite a few things bothered me with the story. The disjointed current and past stories that didn't really mesh and weren't told in the same styles. The excessive amount of sexual content was often quite creepy and in general not required for the storyline. Having William the Conqueror say "dashing good fellow" was funny but I'm pretty sure not historically accurate and I found the portrayal of William so different from my own perception of him that I couldn't wrap my mind around it.
So while this may be a great book for details on the life and times of 11th century Britain, that was overshadowed by the problems I had with the story.
Quite a few things bothered me with the story. The disjointed current and past stories that didn't really mesh and weren't told in the same styles. The excessive amount of sexual content was often quite creepy and in general not required for the storyline. Having William the Conqueror say "dashing good fellow" was funny but I'm pretty sure not historically accurate and I found the portrayal of William so different from my own perception of him that I couldn't wrap my mind around it.
So while this may be a great book for details on the life and times of 11th century Britain, that was overshadowed by the problems I had with the story.
July 8, 2010
What a brilliant mind Julian Rathbone has. Of course I may not always agree with it, or appreciate it, but overall, I don't think it can be denied. The man is a brilliant writer.
The story starts with Walt. A Housecarl for Harold Godwinson. He fought in the Battle of Hastings and lived through it, sans one hand. Disgraced at having not died with his King, he wanders foreign lands aimlessly until he meets Quint, a scholar, an ex monk. They travel together and as they travel, having mild adventures along the way, Walt retells his story for the first time.
I really felt for Walt. In fact my heart was with him throughout this book. Even when the story wasn't on him I looked forward to when it would be again.
Rathbone's description of this 11th century world was mind blowing for me. He did an incredible job and must have researched tirelessly to come to the conclusions and descriptions that he did. From finer details of everyday life and landscape, to his version of little and well known history.
Rathbone doesn't have his main character Walt actually retelling this tale in Walt's own tongue, his own words. It really just reads as any other book. As if you are there. As if Julian Rathbone is putting you there.
Now, there are faults in this book. Faults that got to me enough to put this book down for a month. I enjoyed the first quarter and the last quarter, but stumbled on the middle quarters. The second quarter of this book was about Edward the Confessor, and Rathbone's portrayal of the Confessor (and of Tostig, and of their relationship) was not really to my liking. And then in the third quarter of this book, it was Rathbone's portrayal of William the Conqueror that I had problems with.
In fact, sometimes, I felt as though Julian Rathbone was just trying to be a shock jock.
The Confessor and Tostig were as gay as mardi gra, and he made William the Conqueror into a brainless, french dandy.
I can live with the gay couple, even though I don't believe either Edward or Tostig were gay, but I really have trouble with the William character. Rathbone seemed to try too hard to stamp him with the poncey, french dandy stereotype; for whatever reason. But this wasn't the only problem. Then he changed William's character into something else and by the time of the invasion in 1066, the character you were reading about didn't seem to resemble the character you first read about in the meat of the book.
Harold, however, was well porrtayed and I think there was no guessing what Rathbone was about when he was writing the personalities into these two important figures in English history. He was being a shock jock again.
He clearly favoured Harold, knew most people were fascinated with William and so made William the most repulsive, vile man he could manage, while Harold was a quiet, caring, steady, level-headed guy next door type.
He did make me like Harold though (except for the incest which was really not necessary). And by the end I felt so sad for Harold and Walt, and those other players that were with the story all along, that it broke my heart when they all met their match on that fateful hill near Hastings.
I think that when you get to the end of this book, that you go back and read the first chapter, or the end of the first chapter again as some of it is poignant to the story and you don't realise that until you have finished the book and looked back.
Rathbone's last few paragraphs are the first few paragraphs of the book.
So, if you can get over the graphic gay sex, the few bits of incest (not graphic so don't worry), the mild paedophilia (not graphic and really only a grown man with a crush on a 13 year old, which was still something I could have done without), the modern swearing and occasional modern dialogue (that Rathbone makes no apologies for and says so at the start of the book), then give this terrific book a go.
The story starts with Walt. A Housecarl for Harold Godwinson. He fought in the Battle of Hastings and lived through it, sans one hand. Disgraced at having not died with his King, he wanders foreign lands aimlessly until he meets Quint, a scholar, an ex monk. They travel together and as they travel, having mild adventures along the way, Walt retells his story for the first time.
I really felt for Walt. In fact my heart was with him throughout this book. Even when the story wasn't on him I looked forward to when it would be again.
Rathbone's description of this 11th century world was mind blowing for me. He did an incredible job and must have researched tirelessly to come to the conclusions and descriptions that he did. From finer details of everyday life and landscape, to his version of little and well known history.
Rathbone doesn't have his main character Walt actually retelling this tale in Walt's own tongue, his own words. It really just reads as any other book. As if you are there. As if Julian Rathbone is putting you there.
Now, there are faults in this book. Faults that got to me enough to put this book down for a month. I enjoyed the first quarter and the last quarter, but stumbled on the middle quarters. The second quarter of this book was about Edward the Confessor, and Rathbone's portrayal of the Confessor (and of Tostig, and of their relationship) was not really to my liking. And then in the third quarter of this book, it was Rathbone's portrayal of William the Conqueror that I had problems with.
In fact, sometimes, I felt as though Julian Rathbone was just trying to be a shock jock.
The Confessor and Tostig were as gay as mardi gra, and he made William the Conqueror into a brainless, french dandy.
I can live with the gay couple, even though I don't believe either Edward or Tostig were gay, but I really have trouble with the William character. Rathbone seemed to try too hard to stamp him with the poncey, french dandy stereotype; for whatever reason. But this wasn't the only problem. Then he changed William's character into something else and by the time of the invasion in 1066, the character you were reading about didn't seem to resemble the character you first read about in the meat of the book.
Harold, however, was well porrtayed and I think there was no guessing what Rathbone was about when he was writing the personalities into these two important figures in English history. He was being a shock jock again.
He clearly favoured Harold, knew most people were fascinated with William and so made William the most repulsive, vile man he could manage, while Harold was a quiet, caring, steady, level-headed guy next door type.
He did make me like Harold though (except for the incest which was really not necessary). And by the end I felt so sad for Harold and Walt, and those other players that were with the story all along, that it broke my heart when they all met their match on that fateful hill near Hastings.
I think that when you get to the end of this book, that you go back and read the first chapter, or the end of the first chapter again as some of it is poignant to the story and you don't realise that until you have finished the book and looked back.
Rathbone's last few paragraphs are the first few paragraphs of the book.
So, if you can get over the graphic gay sex, the few bits of incest (not graphic so don't worry), the mild paedophilia (not graphic and really only a grown man with a crush on a 13 year old, which was still something I could have done without), the modern swearing and occasional modern dialogue (that Rathbone makes no apologies for and says so at the start of the book), then give this terrific book a go.
July 17, 2013
-Interpretación sensata pero no necesariamente académica.-
Género. Novela histórica.
Lo que nos cuenta. En 1070, Walt Edwinson vuelve a casa manco para encontrar que su hogar y su familia ya no existen. Durante los últimos cuatro años, justo después de perder la mano, ha estado viajando por Europa hasta llegar al Bósforo. Allí conoce a Quint, con quien comienza a viajar mientras recuerda su juventud, cuando entró al servicio de Haroldo Godwinson, en el exilio igual que su padre, el Conde Godwin.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Novela histórica.
Lo que nos cuenta. En 1070, Walt Edwinson vuelve a casa manco para encontrar que su hogar y su familia ya no existen. Durante los últimos cuatro años, justo después de perder la mano, ha estado viajando por Europa hasta llegar al Bósforo. Allí conoce a Quint, con quien comienza a viajar mientras recuerda su juventud, cuando entró al servicio de Haroldo Godwinson, en el exilio igual que su padre, el Conde Godwin.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
December 10, 2014
Great story of the Norman conquest narrated by a servant of the losing king. Makes the Normans look pretty awful...vividly imagined, with lots of references to geographic features that still exist today in Wessex...interesting characters and narrative that sustained my interest until the end, even though I knew the outcome.
June 4, 2022
Dodatkowa gwiazdka za średniowiecznego gejowego smuta
November 9, 2018
Julian Rathbone's The Last English King (1997) is probably the most memorable historical fiction I’ve ever read. 'The last English King' of the title is Harold Godwinson, of course, but Rathbone tells the story of the Norman Conquest of England (in 1066AD, for our overseas readers) from the point of view of Walt, a simple member of King Harold’s personal bodyguard. Traumatised – as much by his failure to die protecting his king as by the loss of the battle and half an arm – Walt nevertheless manages to escape to Europe. There he falls in with a motley crew of outcasts and vagrants, and embarks upon a confused and unconsummated journey, more odyssey than pilgrimage, towards the Holy Land.
Walt’s story is brutal, tender, oddly erotic, often funny, slightly surreal and, ultimately, very angry. The brutality begins before the Norman invasion with the Godwinsons’ own bored, pointless ‘harrowing’ of disobedient villagers, and continues with the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings. This violence is interleaved with Walt’s tender recollections of the wooing of his wife and now, on his European journey, with the strange erotic healing of the damaged stump of his arm (p.193). But the brutality resurfaces when Walt returns to England, to his home village, to discover the charred bodies of his wife and son in his burnt-out hut. Rathbone is very angry that William the Bastard and a bunch of mercenary psychopaths should have been dignified by history as ‘William the Conqueror’ and ‘the Norman Invasion’.
Nonetheless, the story remains warm and wry and witty overall. One of the particular delights (for me, anyhow) is Rathbone’s deployment of the occasional ‘proleptic’ anachronism. That is to say, as he admits in a prefatory note on ‘Anachronisms and Historical Accuracy’, ‘Occasionally characters, and even the narrator, let slip quotations or near quotations of later writers or make oblique references to later times . . .. For reasons I find difficult to explain, it amuses me, and may amuse others . . .. But it also serves a more serious purpose . . . to remind readers, especially English readers, that it was out of all this that we came’ (p.viii).
In my favourite example, two of his companions discuss poor Walt (p.190):
‘He’s a mess. Traumatised –’
‘Eh?’
‘Word I made up. From the Germanic word for “wound” – applied here to wounds in the mind. Even before the battle . . . I doubt he was up to much. He fears the female orgasm . . .. Anglo-Saxon, you see. Attitudes. Attitudes to the female sex. See the conquering hero comes.’
Bliss. Actually, Julian, it’s from the Greek or late Latin . In German ‘Traum’ means ‘dream’. Are you teasing us? Even so, bliss.
Walt’s story is brutal, tender, oddly erotic, often funny, slightly surreal and, ultimately, very angry. The brutality begins before the Norman invasion with the Godwinsons’ own bored, pointless ‘harrowing’ of disobedient villagers, and continues with the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings. This violence is interleaved with Walt’s tender recollections of the wooing of his wife and now, on his European journey, with the strange erotic healing of the damaged stump of his arm (p.193). But the brutality resurfaces when Walt returns to England, to his home village, to discover the charred bodies of his wife and son in his burnt-out hut. Rathbone is very angry that William the Bastard and a bunch of mercenary psychopaths should have been dignified by history as ‘William the Conqueror’ and ‘the Norman Invasion’.
Nonetheless, the story remains warm and wry and witty overall. One of the particular delights (for me, anyhow) is Rathbone’s deployment of the occasional ‘proleptic’ anachronism. That is to say, as he admits in a prefatory note on ‘Anachronisms and Historical Accuracy’, ‘Occasionally characters, and even the narrator, let slip quotations or near quotations of later writers or make oblique references to later times . . .. For reasons I find difficult to explain, it amuses me, and may amuse others . . .. But it also serves a more serious purpose . . . to remind readers, especially English readers, that it was out of all this that we came’ (p.viii).
In my favourite example, two of his companions discuss poor Walt (p.190):
‘He’s a mess. Traumatised –’
‘Eh?’
‘Word I made up. From the Germanic word for “wound” – applied here to wounds in the mind. Even before the battle . . . I doubt he was up to much. He fears the female orgasm . . .. Anglo-Saxon, you see. Attitudes. Attitudes to the female sex. See the conquering hero comes.’
Bliss. Actually, Julian, it’s from the Greek or late Latin . In German ‘Traum’ means ‘dream’. Are you teasing us? Even so, bliss.
April 13, 2021
The Last English King by Julian Rathbone
A good effort to convert an important historic event into novel to help a general reader understand that what happened in the year 1066 in the battle of Hastings. It provides the personality sketch of the last Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson. And also describes the full detail of William the Conquerer that how he lead the army and with controlled wit, determination and continous struggle succeeded in the battle.
For me, the begining of the story and addition of the wanderer and survivor from the battle of Hastings, the housecarl Walt, was a boring stuff and it seemed an extra dramatic try to weave the story. At some moments, I badly felt to close the book. At last, from second part of the book, from the story of King Edward the Confessor, the story seemed little interesting.
I also felt disgusted while reading the moral evils of that time like incest and adultry of Edith-Swan Neck with her brother Harold and even with her father Godwin.
Overall, the book is a good read. And I can say that it didn't disappoint in the end.
A good effort to convert an important historic event into novel to help a general reader understand that what happened in the year 1066 in the battle of Hastings. It provides the personality sketch of the last Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson. And also describes the full detail of William the Conquerer that how he lead the army and with controlled wit, determination and continous struggle succeeded in the battle.
For me, the begining of the story and addition of the wanderer and survivor from the battle of Hastings, the housecarl Walt, was a boring stuff and it seemed an extra dramatic try to weave the story. At some moments, I badly felt to close the book. At last, from second part of the book, from the story of King Edward the Confessor, the story seemed little interesting.
I also felt disgusted while reading the moral evils of that time like incest and adultry of Edith-Swan Neck with her brother Harold and even with her father Godwin.
Overall, the book is a good read. And I can say that it didn't disappoint in the end.
January 4, 2022
The book essentially two stories in one. One plot follows Walt's post battle of Hastings and the other plot following Walt's life a before with a prime focus on his role as a companion of King Harold. Julian really does give a sense of the cultural considerations and norms throughout the book of the era. Reading the book did feel like one chapter anglo-saxon-celtic era of British history was ending with a new one being ushered in the form of Norman feudalism, this was conveyed in a nostalgic and sad way which really added to the book.
February 20, 2025
This was a fantastic and gripping read: the very best kind of historical fiction. I did enjoy the alternative view of 1066 from one of Harold Godwinson’s acolytes who flees Hastings after the death of the King, maimed and distraught. The story takes the reader across medieval Europe in a fascinating journey to the eastern Mediterranean where Walt finally decides he has to go home and face the new regime under ‘William the Bastard’ - a much more accurate description than ‘The Conqueror’. Rathbone’s lyrical descriptions of a tumultuous time in our island history are delightful. In his prologue the author explains his use of rather modernised language and expletives. I endorse his decision - altogether a refreshing and honest way of dealing with historical narratives - he brings the human interactions vividly to life.
February 8, 2025
Im embarrassed to admit i do quite like a historical fiction i think. This one wasnt anything special it was just fine. Some sentences too long and some bits weird.
December 18, 2021
I can't begin to describe how much I enjoyed this, or how sad I was when I finished it.
July 24, 2022
Never has the phrase 'surprise butt sex' been more apt, but in an enjoyable way.
Still managed to learn more about history from this than from my school. 3 stars.
Still managed to learn more about history from this than from my school. 3 stars.
June 19, 2018
You know, I had a lot of hope for this book despite the polarised reviews. I liked the idea of it being anti-Norman, a different take on England in the times surrounding the Battle of Hastings. But it just doesn't work. It's not that Rathbone's a bad writer as others have suggested, in fact his characterisation is totally on point, with each character being fully-rounded and immersive - but there are just too many holes and not enough ends tied up, and the whole book is a bit bloody pointless. The layout of the book is a bit odd - it starts at the end, and then relapses through Walt telling his childhood friend about where he has been the past few years, eventually finishing back to him coming to England again, full circle so to speak. Ironically, the best writing in this book is in the middle, when Walt goes off on a huge tangent about five chapters long about Edward the Confessor and Edward's own ruminations and relay of his own life while he dies of diabetes.
BUT. Ends are never tied up. It genuinely is like a poorer chronicle, going off on mad tangents and then just ending because the authors died, and then randomly picking up again years later on a totally different topic.
FOR EXAMPLE // SPOILERS NOW. PREPARE YOURSELVES.
Walt never gets with Adeliza, as you would expect him to do because of his lack of sexual desires after the Conquest and his endless nights on the road wrapped up with her in his blanket with his arm stump between her legs.
Walt never goes to the Holy Land with his troupe which seemed to be the whole point of the book. He just turns round on a rose tinted memory whim once they reach Side. I was looking forward to vivid descriptions of Jerusalem, but we are denied it.
It is never explained why, at the beginning of the book, Walt's wife Erica is found as a skeleton holding their baby (also a skeleton), sat in a burnt out throne in a burnt out mead hall in a burnt out village. Yes, the Conquest has happened, but this horrific episode of Walt's wife and child's gruesome death is totally glossed over, even when Walt has returned to England and seen Erica like this for the first time in years. Yet when women are endlessly raped throughout the book, detail is aplenty.
I'd give it a miss.
BUT. Ends are never tied up. It genuinely is like a poorer chronicle, going off on mad tangents and then just ending because the authors died, and then randomly picking up again years later on a totally different topic.
FOR EXAMPLE // SPOILERS NOW. PREPARE YOURSELVES.
Walt never gets with Adeliza, as you would expect him to do because of his lack of sexual desires after the Conquest and his endless nights on the road wrapped up with her in his blanket with his arm stump between her legs.
Walt never goes to the Holy Land with his troupe which seemed to be the whole point of the book. He just turns round on a rose tinted memory whim once they reach Side. I was looking forward to vivid descriptions of Jerusalem, but we are denied it.
It is never explained why, at the beginning of the book, Walt's wife Erica is found as a skeleton holding their baby (also a skeleton), sat in a burnt out throne in a burnt out mead hall in a burnt out village. Yes, the Conquest has happened, but this horrific episode of Walt's wife and child's gruesome death is totally glossed over, even when Walt has returned to England and seen Erica like this for the first time in years. Yet when women are endlessly raped throughout the book, detail is aplenty.
I'd give it a miss.
December 30, 2018
Read this Rathbone first. Tried several others subsequently. Would only recommend this one. Might be an enjoyable reread. The Kirkus reviewer likely more reliable ...
The poached review copied from KIRKUS REVIEW
"A dark-hued lament for the loss of jolly old England a millennium ago, when psychopath William the Conqueror used a bagful of tricks to best good King Harold, this saga from the wide-ranging Rathbone (Blame Hitler, p. 1076, etc.) has its moments but can’t sustain them The story comes out in the halting, painful recollections of Walt, one of Harold’s inner circle of advisers and bodyguards who has wandered far from the Battle at Hastings in 1066, where he lost his right hand as well as his king. Dazed and feverish, Walt has crossed Europe before meeting fellow traveler Quint outside of Constantinople; the ex-monk, realizing Walt has within him a tale that will pass many a weary mile on the road, suggests he pay their way on a journey to the Holy Land. As Walt recalls the time leading up to the Norman invasion, when competing bids for the English throne gave rise to intrigues like the one that brought Harold to Normandy to be tricked by William’s magician into swearing an oath of fealty that would later haunt him, an adventure en route brings them into the company of that same trickster—whom Walt had seen drop dead in Hastings. The conjurer expresses remorse for his earlier role and offers his own memories of William’s preparations, while Walt describes the desperate days after Harold’s coronation, when, faced not only with the Norman threat but another from the north, he had also to quell dissent from within. Walt, healing slowly as he lets go of his grief at not having died with his king, decides to go home before reaching Jerusalem, but not before providing the blow-by-blow details of Harold’s heroic last stand. Popping the clutch once too often in shifting between memory, history, and life on the road, but, still, an often haunting evocation of a tumultuous time of glory and grief."
The poached review copied from KIRKUS REVIEW
"A dark-hued lament for the loss of jolly old England a millennium ago, when psychopath William the Conqueror used a bagful of tricks to best good King Harold, this saga from the wide-ranging Rathbone (Blame Hitler, p. 1076, etc.) has its moments but can’t sustain them The story comes out in the halting, painful recollections of Walt, one of Harold’s inner circle of advisers and bodyguards who has wandered far from the Battle at Hastings in 1066, where he lost his right hand as well as his king. Dazed and feverish, Walt has crossed Europe before meeting fellow traveler Quint outside of Constantinople; the ex-monk, realizing Walt has within him a tale that will pass many a weary mile on the road, suggests he pay their way on a journey to the Holy Land. As Walt recalls the time leading up to the Norman invasion, when competing bids for the English throne gave rise to intrigues like the one that brought Harold to Normandy to be tricked by William’s magician into swearing an oath of fealty that would later haunt him, an adventure en route brings them into the company of that same trickster—whom Walt had seen drop dead in Hastings. The conjurer expresses remorse for his earlier role and offers his own memories of William’s preparations, while Walt describes the desperate days after Harold’s coronation, when, faced not only with the Norman threat but another from the north, he had also to quell dissent from within. Walt, healing slowly as he lets go of his grief at not having died with his king, decides to go home before reaching Jerusalem, but not before providing the blow-by-blow details of Harold’s heroic last stand. Popping the clutch once too often in shifting between memory, history, and life on the road, but, still, an often haunting evocation of a tumultuous time of glory and grief."
February 25, 2020
An arch, knowingly anachronistic and amusing retelling of the tragic story of Harold Godwinson, the Saxon earl who took the english throne after the death of Edward the Confessor, only to find himself fighting simultaneous invasions by the Vikings in the north and the Norman's in the south.
His story has been previously told, very famously, in the Bayeux tapestry. He's the one depicted perishing with an arrow in his eye, a grisly image familiar to every school child raised in this green and pleasant land of mine.
The bulk of the story is told in flashback by Walt the Wanderer, one of Harold's trustiest bodyguards and a survivor of the Battle of Hastings, who is haunted by a warrior's guilt, for he didn't die with his lord, as the honour of his position demands (a prefacing quotation from Tacitus highlights this theme).
Walt had fled England in the aftermath of the Battle of Hastings, and he makes a pilgrimage across Asia Minor towards Jerusalem in the company of Quint, a roving interpreter who Rathbone seems to have smuggled in from a different book set in the time of the Renaissance.
That's fine though, the book is rife with such liberties as Rathbone delights in linking the past to the present, i.e. Walt has tattoos that read "Harold Rules, All Right" and "Walt 4 Erica" - what could be more working-class English than that?
At other times, characters coin phrases such as "traumatized" and "ice cream in hell", the Troggs "Wild Thing" is referenced, as is the Rocky Horror Show(!) and speeches from Shakespeare and Churchill amongst others.
Purists might not like it, but there is enough history to off-set the playful hand of the author - which is never quite as jarring as you might think - as well as a rich profusion of lush, adoring passages dedicated to the land itself, all of which give England the appearance of a place well worth conquering.
Entertaining history with a nod and a wink.
His story has been previously told, very famously, in the Bayeux tapestry. He's the one depicted perishing with an arrow in his eye, a grisly image familiar to every school child raised in this green and pleasant land of mine.
The bulk of the story is told in flashback by Walt the Wanderer, one of Harold's trustiest bodyguards and a survivor of the Battle of Hastings, who is haunted by a warrior's guilt, for he didn't die with his lord, as the honour of his position demands (a prefacing quotation from Tacitus highlights this theme).
Walt had fled England in the aftermath of the Battle of Hastings, and he makes a pilgrimage across Asia Minor towards Jerusalem in the company of Quint, a roving interpreter who Rathbone seems to have smuggled in from a different book set in the time of the Renaissance.
That's fine though, the book is rife with such liberties as Rathbone delights in linking the past to the present, i.e. Walt has tattoos that read "Harold Rules, All Right" and "Walt 4 Erica" - what could be more working-class English than that?
At other times, characters coin phrases such as "traumatized" and "ice cream in hell", the Troggs "Wild Thing" is referenced, as is the Rocky Horror Show(!) and speeches from Shakespeare and Churchill amongst others.
Purists might not like it, but there is enough history to off-set the playful hand of the author - which is never quite as jarring as you might think - as well as a rich profusion of lush, adoring passages dedicated to the land itself, all of which give England the appearance of a place well worth conquering.
Entertaining history with a nod and a wink.
January 31, 2024
I wanted to like this book, and parts of it, I did.
When the author is telling his historical story, it's not bad. Mostly the characters are interesting, mostly there's some good storytelling. Harold Godwinsson and the Battle of Hastings are a fascinating subject, and a story from the perspective of one of Harold's housecarls should be really interesting.
However, we don't get that story. When we could have been seeing Harold through the eyes of Walt, the boy chosen to be one of his housecarls, instead we get a great deal about Edward the Confessor - but not in a way that explains the intrigues and difficulties of the English court and succession in the 1050s. Instead of events, we get offhanded references to events, or short vignettes of characters' reactions to events.
The actual events of the Conquest, both Hardrada's invasion and Williams, take place in the last third of the book and are extremely hasty.
The result is, that although we're supposed to care about Walt's despair at having failed his lord, we're never given a reason to think they had an important relationship, nor any reason to care about it.
in addition, Rathbone very much wants his story to be clever with surreal overtones ... but it's not clever, merely annoyingly pretentious and contrived.
Again, parts of the book are okay. The rest are not worth reading, and I wish I hadn't.
When the author is telling his historical story, it's not bad. Mostly the characters are interesting, mostly there's some good storytelling. Harold Godwinsson and the Battle of Hastings are a fascinating subject, and a story from the perspective of one of Harold's housecarls should be really interesting.
However, we don't get that story. When we could have been seeing Harold through the eyes of Walt, the boy chosen to be one of his housecarls, instead we get a great deal about Edward the Confessor - but not in a way that explains the intrigues and difficulties of the English court and succession in the 1050s. Instead of events, we get offhanded references to events, or short vignettes of characters' reactions to events.
The actual events of the Conquest, both Hardrada's invasion and Williams, take place in the last third of the book and are extremely hasty.
The result is, that although we're supposed to care about Walt's despair at having failed his lord, we're never given a reason to think they had an important relationship, nor any reason to care about it.
in addition, Rathbone very much wants his story to be clever with surreal overtones ... but it's not clever, merely annoyingly pretentious and contrived.
Again, parts of the book are okay. The rest are not worth reading, and I wish I hadn't.
August 11, 2016
c1997: FWFTB: Norman, Walt, monk, Quint, 1066. Interestingly, the author counters criticism before it has even been raised in his Author's note at the start of the book. It is an interesting take on the events leading up to the Normal 'conquest' and some historical figures in ways that are quite different to those portrayed by, say, Jean Plaidy et al. It is humorous and the prose is uncluttered with unnecessary hyperbole and the like. I did not know before reading this book tha the author used to teach at the High School in the neighbouring town of Bognor Regis. Recommended for those of the crew that like a fresh approach to history without wandering into the fantasy genre. "'So. All your oath-swearing law does is shore up, or rather express, the power of those who are already mighty.' 'Exactly so. Is that not the meaning of all law? To uphold the status of the mighty but without resort to war tumult, death and destruction>'" I also rather liked his portrayal of William, a bastard by name and deed, "Cry God for William, England and Saint ... Who's the patron saint of England, Odo?" bawls the hooligan Duke at the foot of Senlac Hill. "You're a fucking bishop, aren't you? You ought to know."
July 4, 2012
If like me your school history classes gave the impression that the Norman Conquest was in some way a Good Thing this books is essential reading.It describes Harold's rise to the top and demonstrates that he was an excellent politician diplomat as well as warrior and king. One is forced to speculate as to what England could have been like had he not fallen at Hastings in what must have been the last throw of the dice for the desperate Normans. The language I'm writing this in would be very different for a start. I was a little worried that this would be a dry history text book but it is anything but. It does contain numerous references and is scrupulous in attributing sources as well as making all arguments clear. But it is still an extremely readable book and is almost a political and military thriller covering a fascinating but little known time period. All in all this is an excellent attempt to counter the Norman propaganda that has dominated English history since their Year Zero of 1066 and highly recommended to anyone remotely interested in the early Middle Ages.
Read
July 26, 2011The idea behind this is great (the story of the Norman Invasion and the Battle of Hastings as told through the eyes of one of King Harold's men), but its execution is actually pretty woeful. The writing and characterisation are uneven and unconvincing and I found Rathbone's style both irritating and and ultimately frustrating. This novel could, with a little care and attention, have been excellent. Sadly, Rathbone's approach is so slap-dash that I didn't end up caring about the characters, and nor did I much enjoy reading this novel.
December 10, 2017
I'm disappointed with the book. Well this book certainly irritated me.The story is told in flashback by Walt the Wanderer, one of Harold's trustiest bodyguards and a survivor of the Battle of Hastings, who is haunted by a warrior's guilt, for he didn't die with his lord, as the honour of his position demands. Author provides a very imaginative, almost quirky, narrative perspective on this story.There are far more compelling novels out there by other authors.
April 1, 2008
I simply love this book.
It is the story of Walt set at the time of King Harold [he of 1066 - arrow in the eye fame]. Walt was a Housecarl, one of the mighty Roayl bodyguards and the book tells the history of England, through his eyes, of the years leading to and including the Battle of Hastings.
It is the story of Walt set at the time of King Harold [he of 1066 - arrow in the eye fame]. Walt was a Housecarl, one of the mighty Roayl bodyguards and the book tells the history of England, through his eyes, of the years leading to and including the Battle of Hastings.
February 15, 2016
3.5* The author did a great job with the history and historical personages -- I particularly liked the characterizations of Harold and Edward. I didn't care for the overall style at all, though, and the historical atmosphere was lacking.
May 7, 2017
Told from the Saxon side,especially as the Bastard(s) generally write history.Exciting,good read. Sad,at times.Better than usual swash,buckle and slash.Also entertaining in parts.Read the intro first and bear in mind the authors'indulgence',which raises a grin when you come across it!
November 29, 2025
Interesting, but feels a little dated.
September 3, 2016
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
November 11, 2025
I gave up on this when Tostig and Edward started shagging. Maybe Edward was gay, but we have no way of knowing and this seemed unnecessary to the story and was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. The early parts of the novel set in Constantinople were good and I wish the whole novel had been about their journey around the Levant rather than flashing back to pre 1066 England. The main problem with the novel is that it bears its research heavily. The trick of writing good historical fiction is to use facts to inform the story without overwhelming the narrative. Sadly this novel doesn’t achieve that, there are long passages of characters and narrative churning out historical facts that don’t aid the story and stop it moving forward. Eventually the book just ground to a halt and the sudden sex scene just seemed a desperate attempt to wake the reader back up.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 2, 2022
This is the story of William the Conqueror’s invasion of England in 1066, told in flashback from the viewpoint of Walt, one of King Harold Godwinson’s bodyguards. Feeling guilty that his king lost his life in the Battle of Hastings, while he, Walt, lost only a hand, Walt was wandering towards Constantinople and the Holy Land when he was joined by an ex-monk named Quint (and a few others), and Walt’s story came out.
The book was interesting, though purposely filled with 20th century verbal anachronisms. However, there was so much detail (and unrelated characters) throughout the story that by the story’s end I was simply glad for it to end (especially since I already knew how the story turned out).
The book was interesting, though purposely filled with 20th century verbal anachronisms. However, there was so much detail (and unrelated characters) throughout the story that by the story’s end I was simply glad for it to end (especially since I already knew how the story turned out).
May 15, 2023
I found parts of this book fascinating and feel that it brought quite a complex period in history alive. However some aspects of the narrative technique felt clunky and contrived: various participants of the 1066 events retelling their story… really? A journey somewhere from Constantinople via ? to ? A chance reunion with William’s court magician? Seriously?
But the complex rivalries between the English regions , the desperate desire to retain the Anglo Saxons / English social structures and freedoms, the murky world of alliances and family ambition all were graphically portrayed. I felt regret for Harold and shared the narrator’s distaste for the brutal Norman land grabbing and control.
But the complex rivalries between the English regions , the desperate desire to retain the Anglo Saxons / English social structures and freedoms, the murky world of alliances and family ambition all were graphically portrayed. I felt regret for Harold and shared the narrator’s distaste for the brutal Norman land grabbing and control.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews