What do you think?
Rate this book
The First Bourbon: Henri IV, King Of France And Navarre
Book by Seward, Desmond
Hardcover
First published June 19, 2013
58 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
About the author
Desmond Seward
59 books61 followersDesmond Seward was an Anglo-Irish popular historian and the author of over two dozen books. He was educated at Ampleforth and St, Catherine's College, Cambridge. He was a specialist in England and France in the Middle Ages and the author of some thirty books, including biographies of Eleanor of Aquitane, Henry V, Richard III, Marie Antoinette and Metternich.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
Read
August 16, 2023“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” – Pascal
The author of this biography is a Catholic, so in this account the atrocities of the French Wars of Religion were started by the Huguenots. To Seward, the Huguenots were the fanatics and the Catholics were sincere believers – until the Counter-Revolution. “But now the Counter-Reformation had begun to teach its flock that, far from being a sin, it was a mercy to kill heretics so that they might sin no more…” and Seward does not approve of that. He sees the 1598 Edict of Nantes - which granted freedom of conscience, specified locations where Huguenots could worship in their own way, and gave them the right to hold government office - as an “ominous” establishment of “a state within a state.”
After Henri IV was crowned, the Holy League was “now hardly more than a cloak for neo-feudalism,” meaning that the great lords were trying to become each a monarch of his own territories, automatically opposing the strong government Henry IV was building. Seward eventually compares the Holy League, heavily subsidized as it was by Philip of Spain, to the Vichy – not a clear parallel, since Spain didn’t conquer Henry’s France.
Throughout the text Seward repeatedly offers blocks of French with no translations.
The author of this biography is a Catholic, so in this account the atrocities of the French Wars of Religion were started by the Huguenots. To Seward, the Huguenots were the fanatics and the Catholics were sincere believers – until the Counter-Revolution. “But now the Counter-Reformation had begun to teach its flock that, far from being a sin, it was a mercy to kill heretics so that they might sin no more…” and Seward does not approve of that. He sees the 1598 Edict of Nantes - which granted freedom of conscience, specified locations where Huguenots could worship in their own way, and gave them the right to hold government office - as an “ominous” establishment of “a state within a state.”
After Henri IV was crowned, the Holy League was “now hardly more than a cloak for neo-feudalism,” meaning that the great lords were trying to become each a monarch of his own territories, automatically opposing the strong government Henry IV was building. Seward eventually compares the Holy League, heavily subsidized as it was by Philip of Spain, to the Vichy – not a clear parallel, since Spain didn’t conquer Henry’s France.
Throughout the text Seward repeatedly offers blocks of French with no translations.
August 16, 2023
A very padded piece of history. A limited biography, leaving me with a little understanding of his life.
April 6, 2021
Oh, I do love a good biography. The Grandfather of both Charles II/James II of England and also father of Louis XIII and thus grandfather of Versailles creator Louis XIV and the great-grandfather of the poor deposed and decapitated Louis XV. I guess for a king of a small country like Navarre when born, and a man who fought and adapted and fought some more, that's quite a legacy. If I'm right, I think one of his daughters married into the Spanish Royal family as well, so I guess he was a 'Queen Victoria' of the age, in a way.
The writing here is great, and yes, I learned a lot lot more than the above basics that really are pretty much google-able. I won't let go of any spoilers! His story is interesting, and though this is quite an old biography at it's first publication, that takes nothing from the research and the easy way this book reads. I've read enough biographies to hopefully be able to say this is an interesting, informative and well-written one that discusses a man long neglected in favour of his grandson's and his daughter's husband, another poor deposed and decapitated monarch. It was a time for chopping the heads off kings, don't you know, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries...
The writing here is great, and yes, I learned a lot lot more than the above basics that really are pretty much google-able. I won't let go of any spoilers! His story is interesting, and though this is quite an old biography at it's first publication, that takes nothing from the research and the easy way this book reads. I've read enough biographies to hopefully be able to say this is an interesting, informative and well-written one that discusses a man long neglected in favour of his grandson's and his daughter's husband, another poor deposed and decapitated monarch. It was a time for chopping the heads off kings, don't you know, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries...
April 26, 2018
I forget when reading books written by UK historians that I should expect mountains of references familiar to only UK historians or modern Britons. Once I managed to get past that annoyance, I found some great threads and inspiration for my own books.
March 1, 2023
This historical biography was well researched and very informative. But not a particularly exciting read, though I guess that's what we can expect from non-fiction.
October 26, 2023
It was a good read over all.
It would be more readable if the quotes were in a different style/font or indented. Using the same font for quotes made it difficult to distinguish the two.
It would be more readable if the quotes were in a different style/font or indented. Using the same font for quotes made it difficult to distinguish the two.
February 21, 2023
Very much enjoyed this- Henry IV has always been one of my favourite historical monarchs.
March 28, 2014
A good, readable history of a really fascinating person. Not sure how it holds up as a serious academic work, but it's fine if you're just interested in the life of Henry the IV, who was one of the very few notably decent kings of Europe.
March 30, 2017
Seward's biography of this remarkable man is engaging and well-written. He does a nice job of conveying Henry's personality and how it enabled him to reconcile former enemies and lead people affiliated with different factions. Seward also explains why Henry was a strong fighter and respected by his troops, but not a particularly good strategist. I also appreciated his point that King Henry has to be understood not as an innovator but as a man of his time--a man formed by Renaissance and late medieval ideals.
Because this is a popular, and not academic, history, I understand why Seward didn't go into exhaustive detail about how Henry and Rosny, over approximately 10 years, rebuilt an economy devastated by 30 years of civil war, but I still found his explanation glib. Pre-Revolution France's economy was complex, and there were multiple opportunities for corruption. But Seward simply says that Rosny cut down on the corruption--thereby restoring the Treasury--without explaining how that was done.
One thing I found very frustrating was Seward's liberal use of French quotes without translation. Sometimes he would provide a paraphrased translation, but, at other times, he simply left the quotes untranslated. This is a history written for English speakers, and it is irritating and disruptive to have to look up quotes on Google translate to figure out what they mean. If there is no way to properly translate a quote, then don't use the quote and try to find another way to make your point. Or, if the quote is absolutely necessary, acknowledge that there is no good translation but give the intended sense.
I also had some concerns regarding Seward's characterization of certain women in Henry's life. It's not surprising that Seward sympathizes with Henry--I expect that's true of most biographers--but his treatment of certain women suggests that he identifies too closely with him. Seward is dismissive of Marie de Medici's (Henry's queen) objections to Henry's insistence that she raise their children alongside the children of his various mistresses and his insistence that his main mistress, Henriette, be accorded a place among Marie's ladies and a prime place in court (describing her as stupid and, essentially, petty). Seward doesn't stop to consider what it might have been like for a foreigner to come into France as queen, be confronted with her husband's mistresses and various illegitimate children, and be expected to accept that women and her children. Yes, this was Renaissance France, and women didn't have many rights and were expected to put up with certain things, but that doesn't mean that they did not feel the indignity, nor that they didn't have legitimate grievances. He also ascribes Henriette's ambition to be queen as being akin to being a gold-digger. Clearly, she was not a scrupulous woman, but why is it morally questionable that she wanted to be Henry's wife and queen if he expected her to sleep with him and give him children (particularly as he was unmarried at the time)? Yes, most royalty of that time did not marry their subjects for various political and foreign policy reasons, but it's not a sign of venality that a subject would seek marriage.
Because this is a popular, and not academic, history, I understand why Seward didn't go into exhaustive detail about how Henry and Rosny, over approximately 10 years, rebuilt an economy devastated by 30 years of civil war, but I still found his explanation glib. Pre-Revolution France's economy was complex, and there were multiple opportunities for corruption. But Seward simply says that Rosny cut down on the corruption--thereby restoring the Treasury--without explaining how that was done.
One thing I found very frustrating was Seward's liberal use of French quotes without translation. Sometimes he would provide a paraphrased translation, but, at other times, he simply left the quotes untranslated. This is a history written for English speakers, and it is irritating and disruptive to have to look up quotes on Google translate to figure out what they mean. If there is no way to properly translate a quote, then don't use the quote and try to find another way to make your point. Or, if the quote is absolutely necessary, acknowledge that there is no good translation but give the intended sense.
I also had some concerns regarding Seward's characterization of certain women in Henry's life. It's not surprising that Seward sympathizes with Henry--I expect that's true of most biographers--but his treatment of certain women suggests that he identifies too closely with him. Seward is dismissive of Marie de Medici's (Henry's queen) objections to Henry's insistence that she raise their children alongside the children of his various mistresses and his insistence that his main mistress, Henriette, be accorded a place among Marie's ladies and a prime place in court (describing her as stupid and, essentially, petty). Seward doesn't stop to consider what it might have been like for a foreigner to come into France as queen, be confronted with her husband's mistresses and various illegitimate children, and be expected to accept that women and her children. Yes, this was Renaissance France, and women didn't have many rights and were expected to put up with certain things, but that doesn't mean that they did not feel the indignity, nor that they didn't have legitimate grievances. He also ascribes Henriette's ambition to be queen as being akin to being a gold-digger. Clearly, she was not a scrupulous woman, but why is it morally questionable that she wanted to be Henry's wife and queen if he expected her to sleep with him and give him children (particularly as he was unmarried at the time)? Yes, most royalty of that time did not marry their subjects for various political and foreign policy reasons, but it's not a sign of venality that a subject would seek marriage.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews