What do you think?
Rate this book
Charles I: The Personal Monarch
Charles Carlton's biography of the monarch of the Civil Wars' was praised for its distinctive psychological portrait of Charles I when it was first published in 1983. Challenging conventional interpretations of the king, as well as questioning orthodox historical assumptions concerning the origins and development of the Civil Wars, the book quickly established itself as the definitive biography.
In the eleven years since the first edition, an immense amount of new material on the king and his reign have emerged and yet no new biography has been written. This second edition includes a substantial new preface which takes account of the new work. Addressing and analysing the furious historiographical debates which have surrounded the period, Carlton offers a fresh and lucid perspective. In addition, the text and bibliography have been thoroughly updated.
"The best biography [of King Charles I] in print. Giving careful attention to the springs of the king's character, Carlton draws a subtle portrait which makes sense of royal actions and policies…Carlton's thoughtful and well-researched biography brings us much closer than we have been before to understanding him."
-- English Historical Review
"It is hard to imagine a more balanced, fairer study…. Faultlessly documented, yet unfolding as a primarily human story, it reveals him in every aspect, as king, husband, father, devout churchman, neither tyrant nor saint, until he becomes wholly known and understandable to us."
-- The Bookseller
In the eleven years since the first edition, an immense amount of new material on the king and his reign have emerged and yet no new biography has been written. This second edition includes a substantial new preface which takes account of the new work. Addressing and analysing the furious historiographical debates which have surrounded the period, Carlton offers a fresh and lucid perspective. In addition, the text and bibliography have been thoroughly updated.
"The best biography [of King Charles I] in print. Giving careful attention to the springs of the king's character, Carlton draws a subtle portrait which makes sense of royal actions and policies…Carlton's thoughtful and well-researched biography brings us much closer than we have been before to understanding him."
-- English Historical Review
"It is hard to imagine a more balanced, fairer study…. Faultlessly documented, yet unfolding as a primarily human story, it reveals him in every aspect, as king, husband, father, devout churchman, neither tyrant nor saint, until he becomes wholly known and understandable to us."
-- The Bookseller
423 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
1 person is currently reading
45 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 26, 2025
3.5
I have a problem with the title. I guess it reflects the King’s attempts to rule/ govern without parliament - with disastrous consequences of course - the last British Monarch (probably?) who attempted to do so.
Personable he wasn’t – his self conscious dignity, with its coating of divine right, prevented that. Only in his final year, as he worked towards martyrdom, did he betray signs.
The runt of the litter, he was scarcely noticed by anyone, his parents included, until the death of his elder brother, Prince Henry, the king who never was. Taken under his wing by George Villiers, King James’s lover, the arrogantly ambitious and hated Duke of Buckingham, Charles was totally dependant upon him when he became king. Buckingham’s assassination was therefore a devastating blow to the young king. In seeking to put into practice lessons learnt from his dead mentor, Charles lacked the nous to evaluate their effect upon the body politic, culminating in civil war.
It was hard to warm to Charles I or even feel sympathy for him until the last months of his life when he seemed humbler and more human. He seems to have convinced himself that he was dying because he would not turn his back on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (BCP) nor renounce the church’s creation of Bishops. (he never forgot his father uttering the legendary “no bishop, no king”)!
It was therefore fitting that the 1662 BCP, introduced after the restoration of the monarchy, should appoint a special service to be read each year on 30th January, the anniversary of the execution of Charles, “King and Martyr”. This prayer book owed much to Archbishops of Canterbury Cranmer and Laud, both martyred too.
Charles was ill equipped to be king. If only he could have made a career in the Fine Arts – he was a brilliant connoisseur. Would British political history have been vastly different if Prince Henry had become king rather than his little brother? We will never know.
I have a problem with the title. I guess it reflects the King’s attempts to rule/ govern without parliament - with disastrous consequences of course - the last British Monarch (probably?) who attempted to do so.
Personable he wasn’t – his self conscious dignity, with its coating of divine right, prevented that. Only in his final year, as he worked towards martyrdom, did he betray signs.
The runt of the litter, he was scarcely noticed by anyone, his parents included, until the death of his elder brother, Prince Henry, the king who never was. Taken under his wing by George Villiers, King James’s lover, the arrogantly ambitious and hated Duke of Buckingham, Charles was totally dependant upon him when he became king. Buckingham’s assassination was therefore a devastating blow to the young king. In seeking to put into practice lessons learnt from his dead mentor, Charles lacked the nous to evaluate their effect upon the body politic, culminating in civil war.
It was hard to warm to Charles I or even feel sympathy for him until the last months of his life when he seemed humbler and more human. He seems to have convinced himself that he was dying because he would not turn his back on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (BCP) nor renounce the church’s creation of Bishops. (he never forgot his father uttering the legendary “no bishop, no king”)!
It was therefore fitting that the 1662 BCP, introduced after the restoration of the monarchy, should appoint a special service to be read each year on 30th January, the anniversary of the execution of Charles, “King and Martyr”. This prayer book owed much to Archbishops of Canterbury Cranmer and Laud, both martyred too.
Charles was ill equipped to be king. If only he could have made a career in the Fine Arts – he was a brilliant connoisseur. Would British political history have been vastly different if Prince Henry had become king rather than his little brother? We will never know.
August 29, 2020
Covers the basics, but with questionable judgment at times, and it is a test-case for why historians should never attempt to be psychoanalysts. Plus the editorial team at Routledge should have been ashamed of themselves - this is one of the most egregiously typo-ridden books I have ever read.
May 16, 2014
Biographies are often segregated into Academic and Popular, the latter snubbed for being dumbed down for the unwashed masses, the former snubbed for being dull as dirt and twice as dry. Here is a biography that breaks those stereotypes, and does so with both style and substance. I know very little about Charles I (had pointy mustache, got head chopped off), and after reading this I'm keen to learn more. The English Civil War has never thrilled me, historically speaking, but maybe it's time to branch out.
The attempt at wearing a psychologist's hat in the beginning chapters felt a little much to me, particularly the bits about homosexuality (gay men are promiscuous, their mommies didn't love them, etc. etc. weary sigh); but such haberdashery is limited. That's pretty much the only criticism I can think of – basically this is a damn good book, proof positive that academic writing don't have to be plodding and dusty, and popular history doesn't have to be shallow and sensationalized. We need more books like this.
The attempt at wearing a psychologist's hat in the beginning chapters felt a little much to me, particularly the bits about homosexuality (gay men are promiscuous, their mommies didn't love them, etc. etc. weary sigh); but such haberdashery is limited. That's pretty much the only criticism I can think of – basically this is a damn good book, proof positive that academic writing don't have to be plodding and dusty, and popular history doesn't have to be shallow and sensationalized. We need more books like this.
June 22, 2013
I needed a quick crash course on Charles. This was a well-written and clear biography. Carlton's penchant for attempting to psychoanalyze Charles (not surprising for the time in which it was written) gets a little heavy-handed at times, but overall it was an enjoyable read.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews