What do you think?
Rate this book
Kings and Queens of England
Life and Times of Charles I
On 30th January 1649, Charles I was executed as a traitor to his people. This regicide was to mark a turning point in English history - the end of the Divine Right of Kings. D.R. Watson examines the life of this uncompromising monarch whose failures led to his untimely death.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1972
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 1, 2020
This series of brief biographies of British monarchs, edited by Antonia Fraser, is very worthy. They are written by sound historians, cover the important events with analysis, include both a useful bibliography and helpful illustrations.
Charles I, as the monarch who was tried for, and found guilty of, treason, and was executed, leading to the Cromwell republican era, has always been a controversial figure. Despite the elapse of over 350 years, there are still those who see Charles as having been a reasonable king who was ill-done by, and those who who see him as having been incompetent and the cause of his own demise.
Watson's position is moderate but tending towards the latter viewpoint.
He sees Charles as having been a good man, loving towards his family - after an initial cold period with his wife. However, his character failings, especially of obstinacy, of strategic blindness, and of coldness towards others, when combined with the certainty, inherited from his father, James I, that a king of England had absolute authority, meant he made it impossible for the parliamentarians to negotiate with him. This was especially so after he repeatedly revealed that he did not intend to follow agreements he was making. Accordingly, his opponents had little choice but to dispatch him.
My view is that Watson argues his case well and fairly.
As with all books in the series, the bibliography is comprehensive - or was when the book was published in 1972 (revised 1993) - and the illustrations are well chosen and, again, comprehensive.
Charles I, as the monarch who was tried for, and found guilty of, treason, and was executed, leading to the Cromwell republican era, has always been a controversial figure. Despite the elapse of over 350 years, there are still those who see Charles as having been a reasonable king who was ill-done by, and those who who see him as having been incompetent and the cause of his own demise.
Watson's position is moderate but tending towards the latter viewpoint.
He sees Charles as having been a good man, loving towards his family - after an initial cold period with his wife. However, his character failings, especially of obstinacy, of strategic blindness, and of coldness towards others, when combined with the certainty, inherited from his father, James I, that a king of England had absolute authority, meant he made it impossible for the parliamentarians to negotiate with him. This was especially so after he repeatedly revealed that he did not intend to follow agreements he was making. Accordingly, his opponents had little choice but to dispatch him.
My view is that Watson argues his case well and fairly.
As with all books in the series, the bibliography is comprehensive - or was when the book was published in 1972 (revised 1993) - and the illustrations are well chosen and, again, comprehensive.
July 25, 2016
Nice little Oxfam bargain (along with companion volumes on Charles II and Elizabeth I). A typical coffee table history book series edited by Antonia Fraser, so packed with glossy images and an easily accessible text. That doesn't mean that the text is at all trivial or badly written, but this serves as a nice introduction to more scholarly works.
Charles was never meant to be king. Born puny and with a speech impediment, his elder brother Prince Henry was the star until typhus killed him aged 16, leaving 'baby Charles' as James 1 continually called him, as the heir. Watson traces his development from immature infatuation with George Villiers, through marriage and children with Henrietta Marie, the turmoil of the Civil War to his inevitable end as the only English monarch to be executed by Parliament.
I'm probably biased, given my long-held regard for Oliver Cromwell (blame the Ladybird books for that) and the Alec Guiness portrayal, but Charles is rarely a sympathetic or attractive character. It seems a shame that the only monarch to have had such exquisite taste in art (Rubens, Van Dyck, Mijtens and of course the wonderful William Dobson) was such an irritating and self-opinionated little man.
Charles was never meant to be king. Born puny and with a speech impediment, his elder brother Prince Henry was the star until typhus killed him aged 16, leaving 'baby Charles' as James 1 continually called him, as the heir. Watson traces his development from immature infatuation with George Villiers, through marriage and children with Henrietta Marie, the turmoil of the Civil War to his inevitable end as the only English monarch to be executed by Parliament.
I'm probably biased, given my long-held regard for Oliver Cromwell (blame the Ladybird books for that) and the Alec Guiness portrayal, but Charles is rarely a sympathetic or attractive character. It seems a shame that the only monarch to have had such exquisite taste in art (Rubens, Van Dyck, Mijtens and of course the wonderful William Dobson) was such an irritating and self-opinionated little man.
February 24, 2013
And I thought my luck was bad.
October 3, 2024
This book is another well produced volume in the series on monarchs with Antonia Fraser as general editor. Judging by their frequent appearance in charity shops the series is popular and part of the appeal is the plentiful illustrations and usually easy to read narrative. This one on Charles 1 is another positive addition to the series.
In this account of his life, Charles I comes across as something of a conundrum. To quote Lucy Hutchinson, wife of a Puritan colonel, "Men wondered that so good a man should be so bad a King". Charles' belief in the Divine Right of kings was nothing new but he failed to react to the fact that times change and Parliament was taking on a different role in government of the country. It was not something to convene or dismiss at the beck and call of the monarch or when the King needed to have money approved. Evidently, Charles was devious, obstinate and not as astute politically or as ruthless as many of his predecessors.
Although I am far from being in favour of the monarchy (as an institution or constitutional figurehead) I cannot help preferring the Cavaliers rather than the Parliamentarians. Whilst not a Royalist, and mindful that Charles made many mistakes and failed to compromise, I consider his trial and execution to be a travesty. Perhaps over-influenced by the portrayal of Alec Guinness in the film "Cromwell", Charles reserved his best performance for the final days of his life. He was not a martyr nor was he a tyrant. But his impact on history was huge.
In this account of his life, Charles I comes across as something of a conundrum. To quote Lucy Hutchinson, wife of a Puritan colonel, "Men wondered that so good a man should be so bad a King". Charles' belief in the Divine Right of kings was nothing new but he failed to react to the fact that times change and Parliament was taking on a different role in government of the country. It was not something to convene or dismiss at the beck and call of the monarch or when the King needed to have money approved. Evidently, Charles was devious, obstinate and not as astute politically or as ruthless as many of his predecessors.
Although I am far from being in favour of the monarchy (as an institution or constitutional figurehead) I cannot help preferring the Cavaliers rather than the Parliamentarians. Whilst not a Royalist, and mindful that Charles made many mistakes and failed to compromise, I consider his trial and execution to be a travesty. Perhaps over-influenced by the portrayal of Alec Guinness in the film "Cromwell", Charles reserved his best performance for the final days of his life. He was not a martyr nor was he a tyrant. But his impact on history was huge.
October 18, 2017
Intriguing
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews