The Stuarts

by John Leslie Miller

An established biographer examines the Stuart monarchs and the dynasty as a whole.

The Stuart dynasty continues to be one of the most popular royal families for readers. Ruling from 1603 - 1714, theirs was a time of high political and religion tension and many revolts. The Stuarts , begining with James and the first unification of three British Kingdoms, shares the stories of this powerful family, ending with Queen Anne, whose death without an heir ended the dynasty. This is a dramatic and important history that takes a close look at all of the individual rulers as well at the dynasty as a whole.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, Scotland

320 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was more familiar with this time frame than I thought and enjoyed learning about the Covenanters and Presbytery which was lightly and not sectarian at all. I now know more definite dates.

[Lyn Sweetapple · Rating 5 out of 5]

I put off reading this book for a long time, because I didn't want to read about kings behaving badly. This book was a revelation. Instead of just a recount of the Stuarts from James VI/I to Anne, it looks at the period through the legislation, taxation, and international dealings of the era. I was surprised to find that during the Irish Wars (1641-2) almost 1/3 of the population died and by 1660 Catholic land ownership dropped from 60 to 10 percent; that the Quakers did not become pacifist until after the Restoration; the date September 3rd is significant year after year; Scottish architecture is the proof that during this time the country became less violent; one person Anthony Ashley Cooper found South Carolina and the two rivers in Charleston are named after him; Whigs derived from a fanatical Presbyterian Whiggamore who was for excluding Catholics from the Crown while Tory was a tradtional term for Irish briggands and became a term of honor for those who supported James II; and finally that the Orange Lodges in Ulster did not start until the 1790s. William III was actually for toleration.
I hope you learn many new facts from this well written and researched book.

[Cathy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though they aren't as well known as the Plantagenets or the Tudors, the reign of the Stuarts (1603-1714) was a transformative period in English history and thus worth studying. This book provides a pretty good overview. Even though it focuses mainly on the political history of the time, it's not a dry or difficult read. It is not, however, very suitable for someone who doesn't already have some knowledge of English history, as there are a lot of offhand references to events and institutions that a reader with no background wouldn't be aware of. I had a few other issues with the book. It's poorly edited in places, and in particular Miller has an annoying habit of switching back and forth between names and titles when referring to specific people. He also gives short shrift to the queens of the era: the chapter on William and Mary mentions Queen Mary fewer than a dozen times, and the chapter on Anne focuses mostly on the activities of the key politicians and military leaders of her reign. But overall, it's a good survey of the era and worth reading.

[Gary Newman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Needs some more background in places so the reader know of events and people(titles and how they got there). References can seem obscure if the reader did not have some prior learning let alone knowledge.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Miller’s The Stuarts offers a compelling and reflective exploration of a dynasty often overshadowed by the Tudors, delivering a formal yet accessible account of their triumphs and failures from James I to Anne. As someone fascinated by the Stuarts’ political maneuvering and the Jacobite cause, I found Miller’s revisionist approach refreshing, challenging Whig history’s triumphalism and highlighting the dynasty’s underrated contributions—uniting England, Scotland, and Ireland, fostering arts and sciences, and laying colonial foundations—while candidly addressing their lack of charisma, political skill (except for William III), and chronic financial woes. But Miller gives the Stuarts their due for uniting three kingdoms, patronizing the arts and sciences, and laying the foundations for overseas empire (12 out of 13 American colonies under their reign).

Unlike Peter Ackroyd’s Rebellion, which weaves a slower, literary narrative focused on the early Stuarts and the Civil War, Miller’s monarch-by-monarch structure moves briskly, packing in facts that sometimes jump across contexts but suit readers like me who prefer analysis over storytelling. Each chapter, dedicated to a single ruler, grounds the dynasty’s arc in their personal and political struggles. James I’s delicate balancing of three kingdoms and religious tensions sets the stage, while Charles I’s tragic failures contrast sharply with James II’s farcical speedrun—a nod to Marx’s quip about history repeating as farce. Cromwell, given his own chapter, emerges as an improbably effective but unsustainable republican dictator, his New Model Army a fierce yet uncontrollable force that reshaped governance. William III’s stands out as the rare Stuart with shrewd political acumen, navigating the Glorious Revolution and European wars with strategic finesse, though his unpopularity as an absentee foreigner king with no heir weakened his domestic legacy.

Miller’s treatment of Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch, stands out. Portrayed as a shy, ailing woman who ruled with Tory conviction, Anne’s firm Anglicanism and attempts to bridge the Tory-Whig divide mark her as the last genuinely Tory queen of unbroken lineage. Her veto of the Scottish Militia Bill and use of the Queen’s Touch reflect lingering Stuart traditions, even as her childlessness handed the crown to the Hanoverians via Sophia, Electress of Hanover. Miller’s brief nod to Sophia connects the Stuarts’ continental legacy, a thread I’m eager to explore further in Daughters of the Winter Queen.

A central theme is the Tories’ struggle to reconcile royalism with the Glorious Revolution, choosing the Church of England over hereditary loyalty—a shift from throne to altar that redefined Toryism as an aristocratic, religious commitment. This choice sidelined the Jacobite cause, which lingered in Scotland and Ireland, fueled by resentment against Hanoverian rule. Miller’s sympathetic take on Catholic and Irish suffering under Cromwell and beyond challenges Whig narratives, adding depth to James II’s doomed push for Catholic toleration, which alienated Anglicans without winning dissenters.

I can’t help but speculate: had James II renounced his Catholic establishment, rallied Celtic forces, and secured committed French support, a restored Stuart monarchy with Catholic heirs might have unified the kingdoms, prioritizing religious toleration and internal administration over colonial or continental rivalries. While Miller shows James’s psychological collapse and Louis XIV’s half-hearted aid doomed this, the vision lingers as a compelling what-if, especially as he was set up by his brother with the strongest monarchy since Charles’ personal rule, but like his brother doubled down on alienation of his natural Tory support base to chase dissenters he simulataneously distrusted.

Another key insight is how heavy taxation and standing armies, born of Stuart-era conflicts, laid the groundwork for popular government. The Long Parliament’s taxes, far exceeding Charles I’s hated ship money, and the New Model Army’s battlefield prowess centralized state power, creating a strong state but a weak monarchy by Anne’s time. This presages Napoleon’s Grande Armée and modern democracies’ fiscal demands, showing the Stuarts’ unintended role in shaping modern governance.

While Ackroyd’s Rebellion lingers on personal dramas, Miller’s broader scope, including William, Mary, and Anne, offers a fuller dynastic portrait. His formal tone and dense facts made The Stuarts a faster, more engaging read for me than Ackroyd’s denser narrative. Though the book’s back-and-forth style can feel cluttered, it rewards readers who value big-picture analysis over literary flair. For anyone intrigued by the Stuarts’ complex legacy, their political missteps, or the roots of modern Britain, Miller’s work is a must-read, offering a balanced yet provocative reassessment of a dynasty that shaped more than it’s often credited for.

[Margaret Jones · Rating 2 out of 5]

This would be a great book for those looking for an overview of the era, especially if they were studying it. However for me and my project I was taking too long and grew bored with it. This is not a slight against the book. It just wasn't what I was wanting anymore.

[Mick Maye · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoed this book. Short and concise.