What do you think?
Rate this book
The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I
In the 1630s, King Charles I’s efforts to expand royal power caused alarm throughout the British Isles. In England, a small group of noblemen chose to risk their lives and fortunes to stop him. In a magnificent new study of the political crisis during the English Civil War, acclaimed historian John Adamson explores the brilliant strategy of the men who started a movement that would overthrow a king, set three kingdoms ablaze, and lead to a new religious and political order in mainland Britain.
768 pages, Paperback
First published March 3, 2007
6 people are currently reading
260 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 - 15 of 15 reviews
July 7, 2013
John Adamson’s The Noble Revolt asserts the crucial role of political ideas in the coming cataclysm of the English civil war. His focus is close: the 18 months before the final breach between Charles I and Parliament, but it is as scholarly in depth as it is cinematic in scope. Here is a dramatic retelling of a story we thought we knew well. The old Marxist interpretation of class struggle is put to rest and so is the revisionist view that the civil war was brought about by unfortunate conjunctions of personalities and events. Instead we discover how a small group of ideologically motivated noblemen came to dominate the state and attempted to reduced Charles I to a puppet king.
Many of the noblemen in Adamson’s ‘Puritan Junto’ were related to Queen Elizabeth’s last favourite, Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and the late Earl’s ghost is ever present behind the story. Essex was executed in 1601 after leading a revolt whose aim was to force Elizabeth to name the Stuart King James of Scots her heir. There had already been almost half a century of struggle over the succession. Elizabeth had been queen for 43 of them, and her failure to secure the future of the Protestant elite by marrying or nominating an heir had encouraged the development of a conservative form of republicanism. This was not consciously anti-monarchical but a theory of good citizenship inspired by the classical republican traditions of the ancient world. There was a new sense of duty to the nation beyond the reign of a single monarch, and Essex was the self-appointed champion of the Protestant ‘military men’ and the ideal of ‘noble virtue’: the duty to act for the good of the commonwealth. That meant protecting liberties as well as religion, and there is evidence that Essex intended to offer James the throne with ‘conditions’.
The leading figure amongst King Charles’s enemies in the Junto of 1640-42 was Essex’s nephew, Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick. He has been left out of most histories written in the last 150 years, but he emerges here as important to the outbreak of civil war as Oliver Cromwell is to its conclusion. Warwick’s values remained close to those of his uncle and by 1638 Warwick and his allies were desperate men. Charles was ruling without Parliament and moving the English Church towards what they judged Popery. The difficulties of a noble revolt had been exemplified in the fate of Essex, who could only raise a few court gallants behind him. Several of the Junto considered leaving their estates to emigrate to America. But in 1640 Charles was obliged to call his first Parliament for 11 years in order to raise the money he needed to crush his Scots rebels. It was dissolved shortly afterwards, but Warwick and his allies encouraged the Scots to invade England to pressure Charles to call another. Thereafter they were utterly ruthless in pursuit of radical political reform in favour of a ‘Venetianised’ commonwealth that would give them control of Church and state.
This is a big book, but what Adamson has to say is not merely new and profound, it’s an exciting read, full of colour and finely drawn characters. The trial of Charles’s right-hand man, the Earl of Strafford, is a highlight. A loyal servant of the king, he was accused of a new sort of treason, against the commonwealth rather than the person of the king. He played his part brilliantly, entering the stage set of Westminster Hall in funeral black, the garb of penitence and mourning, and used his sharp wit and intellect to make mincemeat of his accusers. When the case looked to fail, the Junto turned to an Act of Attainder. Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII, would have sacrificed Strafford at the outset without blinking (successful tyrants know how to be popular), but to Charles such a betrayal would have touched on his honour. He tried to have Strafford sprung from the Tower. The plot failed, undermining the efforts of the moderate reformers amongst the nobility, who had little taste for Warwick’s Puritan clique of first cousins and intended to save Strafford’s life. His fate was now sealed and, in the words of a contemporary historian, as Charles signed the death warrant, ‘the same instant, with the same Pen and Ink, the King lost his Prerogative and Strafford’s life’.
Charles hoped to retrieve power by murdering his leading enemies in Scot- land (‘the incident’, as it became known, failed) and in England by instigating his own treason trials with the arrest of five MPs. He had on his side his own Scottish partners, such as the Earl of Roxburgh (another new character in the drama). But when he arrived at the Commons with his soldiers the MPs had already fled. ‘I see the birds have flown’, said the King. Fearing for his personal safety he himself left London with his family. That night at Hampton Court all five of them slept in one bed. The country meanwhile was dividing into two armed camps. The civil war was about to begin.
The Noble Revolt is an intimidating book to pick off the shelf. It has 200 pages of notes alone. But the ten years dedicated to writing it were well spent. You are in the hands not only of a scholar but also of a fine writer and each chapter becomes more gripping than the last. The King’s ‘peace’ is permeated with a sense of menace and fractured by violence. I look forward to Adamson on the King’s war.
This review first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated May 5, 2007
Many of the noblemen in Adamson’s ‘Puritan Junto’ were related to Queen Elizabeth’s last favourite, Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and the late Earl’s ghost is ever present behind the story. Essex was executed in 1601 after leading a revolt whose aim was to force Elizabeth to name the Stuart King James of Scots her heir. There had already been almost half a century of struggle over the succession. Elizabeth had been queen for 43 of them, and her failure to secure the future of the Protestant elite by marrying or nominating an heir had encouraged the development of a conservative form of republicanism. This was not consciously anti-monarchical but a theory of good citizenship inspired by the classical republican traditions of the ancient world. There was a new sense of duty to the nation beyond the reign of a single monarch, and Essex was the self-appointed champion of the Protestant ‘military men’ and the ideal of ‘noble virtue’: the duty to act for the good of the commonwealth. That meant protecting liberties as well as religion, and there is evidence that Essex intended to offer James the throne with ‘conditions’.
The leading figure amongst King Charles’s enemies in the Junto of 1640-42 was Essex’s nephew, Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick. He has been left out of most histories written in the last 150 years, but he emerges here as important to the outbreak of civil war as Oliver Cromwell is to its conclusion. Warwick’s values remained close to those of his uncle and by 1638 Warwick and his allies were desperate men. Charles was ruling without Parliament and moving the English Church towards what they judged Popery. The difficulties of a noble revolt had been exemplified in the fate of Essex, who could only raise a few court gallants behind him. Several of the Junto considered leaving their estates to emigrate to America. But in 1640 Charles was obliged to call his first Parliament for 11 years in order to raise the money he needed to crush his Scots rebels. It was dissolved shortly afterwards, but Warwick and his allies encouraged the Scots to invade England to pressure Charles to call another. Thereafter they were utterly ruthless in pursuit of radical political reform in favour of a ‘Venetianised’ commonwealth that would give them control of Church and state.
This is a big book, but what Adamson has to say is not merely new and profound, it’s an exciting read, full of colour and finely drawn characters. The trial of Charles’s right-hand man, the Earl of Strafford, is a highlight. A loyal servant of the king, he was accused of a new sort of treason, against the commonwealth rather than the person of the king. He played his part brilliantly, entering the stage set of Westminster Hall in funeral black, the garb of penitence and mourning, and used his sharp wit and intellect to make mincemeat of his accusers. When the case looked to fail, the Junto turned to an Act of Attainder. Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII, would have sacrificed Strafford at the outset without blinking (successful tyrants know how to be popular), but to Charles such a betrayal would have touched on his honour. He tried to have Strafford sprung from the Tower. The plot failed, undermining the efforts of the moderate reformers amongst the nobility, who had little taste for Warwick’s Puritan clique of first cousins and intended to save Strafford’s life. His fate was now sealed and, in the words of a contemporary historian, as Charles signed the death warrant, ‘the same instant, with the same Pen and Ink, the King lost his Prerogative and Strafford’s life’.
Charles hoped to retrieve power by murdering his leading enemies in Scot- land (‘the incident’, as it became known, failed) and in England by instigating his own treason trials with the arrest of five MPs. He had on his side his own Scottish partners, such as the Earl of Roxburgh (another new character in the drama). But when he arrived at the Commons with his soldiers the MPs had already fled. ‘I see the birds have flown’, said the King. Fearing for his personal safety he himself left London with his family. That night at Hampton Court all five of them slept in one bed. The country meanwhile was dividing into two armed camps. The civil war was about to begin.
The Noble Revolt is an intimidating book to pick off the shelf. It has 200 pages of notes alone. But the ten years dedicated to writing it were well spent. You are in the hands not only of a scholar but also of a fine writer and each chapter becomes more gripping than the last. The King’s ‘peace’ is permeated with a sense of menace and fractured by violence. I look forward to Adamson on the King’s war.
This review first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated May 5, 2007
February 29, 2020
This is history in close-up. This book explores English politics in the 18 months before the civil war. It is something of a revisionist account: whiggish histories of the civil war period want to talk about it was the triumph of the English people via the commons; marxists want to talk about the downfall of monarchy. In Adamson's account, however, the key struggle is between the king and a clique of anti-monarchical peers, known later as the Junto lords.
The story starts in September 1640. Every history of 17th Century England will tell you that late that month, the king summoned a great assembly of nobles and then a parliament. What Adamson will tell you -- and this was news to me despite a lot of reading on the topic -- is that at the start of September, 1640, a number of prominent peers, notably the Earl of Warwick, were pretty explicitly threatening to stage an armed revolt against the king to convene parliament. The king's Privy Council thought they had a good chance of success -- the London mob was highly anti-royal, and the officers of the London militia were overwhelmingly on the Earl's side. The Great Council was a coherent but failed effort by Charles to demonstrate that the Petitioner Lords were isolated soreheads. Turns out they spoke for a majority of the nobility and were able to drag the king along with their program. This matters because it suggests that the king's decision to summon parliament -- with everything that followed -- wasn't due to impersonal or economic forces, but due to particular leaders deciding to roll the dice on treason.
Adamson gives a close reading of the months that followed, as the anti-royal forces forced various concessions on the king using their control of tax policy, the armies of their Scottish allies, and, at key points, the London mob. Adamson has collected a vast mass of detail but I never felt lost -- he is very good at tying particular events to the historical context and at explaining what consequence he draws from it.
A running theme is that, contra many previous accounts, the Junto lords were not very interested in religious reform. Adamson shows that reform of the Church of England was generally a low priority for clique running the parliamentary agenda, and was only pushed to the fore at times it was necessary to reassure their anti-episcopal allies in Scotland -- and even then, the Junto took care that little should pass. "Root and branch" reform was a slogan, but not a real priority. The real priority was seizing power from the king -- particularly the power to summon and dismiss parliament, the power to appoint privy councilors, and above all the power to raise and control armies.
Adamson maintains a tone of historical detachment. I came away more sympathetic to just about all the characters. I think I have a deeper understanding of Charles, in particular -- he understood he was confronted by traitors who wanted to take away his crown, and he tried to protect it every way he could, and it's perhaps too much to expect him to have understood in 1641 how thoroughly his enemies had outmaneuvered him. I also understand that once the parliamentary leaders, particularly the dissident lords, had started down that path, they could never allow the king to regain his power or the political initiative.
My only hesitation is that I think Adamson is not as good as he could be at tracing public opinion. At key points in the story it did matter what the public thought, or at least what the electorate and the London public thought. Why did they generally side against the king? I imagine Adamson felt himself space limited, but I'd have liked to hear a little more, or at least have references to books that cover this.
I would consider this book a must-read for any serious student of the period. Having read it, I'm fairly persuaded that Adamson catches essential aspects of the story that are not explained adequately by other interpretations. (I have done a good deal of reading and some primary-source digging here, so I feel qualified to opine.)
The story starts in September 1640. Every history of 17th Century England will tell you that late that month, the king summoned a great assembly of nobles and then a parliament. What Adamson will tell you -- and this was news to me despite a lot of reading on the topic -- is that at the start of September, 1640, a number of prominent peers, notably the Earl of Warwick, were pretty explicitly threatening to stage an armed revolt against the king to convene parliament. The king's Privy Council thought they had a good chance of success -- the London mob was highly anti-royal, and the officers of the London militia were overwhelmingly on the Earl's side. The Great Council was a coherent but failed effort by Charles to demonstrate that the Petitioner Lords were isolated soreheads. Turns out they spoke for a majority of the nobility and were able to drag the king along with their program. This matters because it suggests that the king's decision to summon parliament -- with everything that followed -- wasn't due to impersonal or economic forces, but due to particular leaders deciding to roll the dice on treason.
Adamson gives a close reading of the months that followed, as the anti-royal forces forced various concessions on the king using their control of tax policy, the armies of their Scottish allies, and, at key points, the London mob. Adamson has collected a vast mass of detail but I never felt lost -- he is very good at tying particular events to the historical context and at explaining what consequence he draws from it.
A running theme is that, contra many previous accounts, the Junto lords were not very interested in religious reform. Adamson shows that reform of the Church of England was generally a low priority for clique running the parliamentary agenda, and was only pushed to the fore at times it was necessary to reassure their anti-episcopal allies in Scotland -- and even then, the Junto took care that little should pass. "Root and branch" reform was a slogan, but not a real priority. The real priority was seizing power from the king -- particularly the power to summon and dismiss parliament, the power to appoint privy councilors, and above all the power to raise and control armies.
Adamson maintains a tone of historical detachment. I came away more sympathetic to just about all the characters. I think I have a deeper understanding of Charles, in particular -- he understood he was confronted by traitors who wanted to take away his crown, and he tried to protect it every way he could, and it's perhaps too much to expect him to have understood in 1641 how thoroughly his enemies had outmaneuvered him. I also understand that once the parliamentary leaders, particularly the dissident lords, had started down that path, they could never allow the king to regain his power or the political initiative.
My only hesitation is that I think Adamson is not as good as he could be at tracing public opinion. At key points in the story it did matter what the public thought, or at least what the electorate and the London public thought. Why did they generally side against the king? I imagine Adamson felt himself space limited, but I'd have liked to hear a little more, or at least have references to books that cover this.
I would consider this book a must-read for any serious student of the period. Having read it, I'm fairly persuaded that Adamson catches essential aspects of the story that are not explained adequately by other interpretations. (I have done a good deal of reading and some primary-source digging here, so I feel qualified to opine.)
June 12, 2012
This is how history should be written. Terrific detail but incredibly readable - in fact, it was almost written as a novel and the content was fascinating and clearly shows the English Civil War had a complex cause beyond 'right but repugnant' Rounheads falling out with 'wrong but romantic' Cavaliers. It may not have been planned but was ultimately brought about to save the necks of a cadre of rebellious nobles who had gambled for high stakes and were likely to lose! a MUST for anyone interested in the period.
July 5, 2020
Absolutely magnificent. This is history at its best - superbly argued, field-changing work that is also an absolutely riveting read. It's downright exciting, even when you already know exactly what is coming. It's probably not a book for novices to the history of this era, though. It requires considerable prior knowledge of the people, issues, and events to get the most out of what Adamson has done in this tour de force.
April 1, 2017
Well written book concentrating on the short period over 1640 and 1641 leading up to the English Civil War (ending with the King deciding to leave London). The book uses lots of new evidence (in particular meticulous examination of voting records and of notes kept by some of the main participants) to re-examine both the traditional Whig version (of the Civil War being part of an inevitable move towards greater freedom) and the “modern” counter interpretation (that in some ways the war was caused by luck and in particular the timing of an Irish uprising).
The central premise is the prime actors in the events in this period was a small group (clique) of nobles, partly motivated by their own preferment and power and by puritan religion but prepared to compromise both (unlike some of their part time allies their determination was increased not allayed by offers of preferment; they often slowed down or even voted against religious reform if were expedient to do so at the time) in pursuit of their long-term goal to change the relationship between sovereign and noble subjects to more of a Venetian style regime with the authority vested firstly by nobles (who could withdraw it) and in the position not person of the sovereign. To do this they utilised careful historical research (using precedents to show that the current situation of an all powerful personal sovereign with power invested from God was the historical anomaly), a careful and finely nuanced alliance with their Covenanter allies in Scotland and skilful parliamentary management – achieving dramatic aims despite only a Commons majority that could quickly disappear depending on attendance levels and cause and a built in Lords minority (due to Irish peers and Bishops). He argues that another key motivator was the developing potential due to a breakdown of negotiations between Hapsburgs and Palatine of a chance to unite England and Scotland as leaders of a European-wide Protestant movement (and that incidentally the resulting actins of stopping the levying of Irish troops to fight for the Hapsburgs was the precipitation of the Irish uprising so that the fortuitous event was the negotiation breakdown not the uprising).
Although well written the book is far too detailed for any but the professional historian (although thankfully more than half the 1000+ pages are non-essential footnotes and references) in particular in its concentration on refutation of interpretations of individual votes or events whose very happening let alone “conventional” interpretation is unknown to the interested amateur.
The central premise is the prime actors in the events in this period was a small group (clique) of nobles, partly motivated by their own preferment and power and by puritan religion but prepared to compromise both (unlike some of their part time allies their determination was increased not allayed by offers of preferment; they often slowed down or even voted against religious reform if were expedient to do so at the time) in pursuit of their long-term goal to change the relationship between sovereign and noble subjects to more of a Venetian style regime with the authority vested firstly by nobles (who could withdraw it) and in the position not person of the sovereign. To do this they utilised careful historical research (using precedents to show that the current situation of an all powerful personal sovereign with power invested from God was the historical anomaly), a careful and finely nuanced alliance with their Covenanter allies in Scotland and skilful parliamentary management – achieving dramatic aims despite only a Commons majority that could quickly disappear depending on attendance levels and cause and a built in Lords minority (due to Irish peers and Bishops). He argues that another key motivator was the developing potential due to a breakdown of negotiations between Hapsburgs and Palatine of a chance to unite England and Scotland as leaders of a European-wide Protestant movement (and that incidentally the resulting actins of stopping the levying of Irish troops to fight for the Hapsburgs was the precipitation of the Irish uprising so that the fortuitous event was the negotiation breakdown not the uprising).
Although well written the book is far too detailed for any but the professional historian (although thankfully more than half the 1000+ pages are non-essential footnotes and references) in particular in its concentration on refutation of interpretations of individual votes or events whose very happening let alone “conventional” interpretation is unknown to the interested amateur.
September 14, 2022
In the Noble Revolt John Adamson challenges perceptions around the build-up to the English Civil War arguing it was the Lords, rather than the Commons that held the whip. The book covers from May 1640 through to the start of January 1642. As such this is about origins of the conflict and interplay with the Second Bishops war rather than getting into the civil war itself, indeed stopping in January when Charles leaves London the book ends half a year before the actual campaigning began. The focus is on the political manoeuvres in parliament and the court.
This book therefore overturns many pre-conceptions. Adamson demonstrates that at this early stage it was not the commons taking the lead, and that religion was not a main part of motivations. Instead, it was about the Lords, and as much about a group being out of power manoeuvring their way into power. Similarly, when most think of the civil war we think of Oliver Cromwell but here he is very much a minor player, even compared to many others in the Commons, who are mostly actually working with their faction in the Lords. This is perhaps one of the downsides of the book; ending before the civil war begins let alone the bloody conclusion leaves me wondering at what point and how this was turned upside down and the Commons became clearly dominant.
One of the things that struck me is how this book describes what might be considered the very earliest stages of party politics in England. The book is about parliamentary factions, and about how the titular nobles of the revolt win by organising their faction in a way that we would take for granted now but was revolutionary at the time. This makes it a very interesting read for anyone interested in the machinations of UK politics.
Adamson is excellent at setting scenes, for example this is done for the first day of the Earl of Strafford’s trial (pp.215-6) where we are told the Earl wore “the garb of grief and penitence”. The route to Parliament from the Tower with the “Damp and smoky” atmosphere evoked and the guard described in detail giving a real pen picture of what it would have been like to be there. This gives many parts of this book a novel like quality where we get to know the main characters such as King Charles and the Dukes of Bedford and Warwick. And, albeit with the problem that we know the outcome in advance, it has many plot twists on the way through.
Reflecting those twists I found my views shifting as the book progresses. I found myself initially rooting for the Junto of Lords against their exclusion by the King, but my sympathy shifted towards the King as they grow tyrannical themselves. For example, they transfer control over navy finances to themselves from the Admiralty (p364), or running the Commons as you would expect a mob-boss through fear forcing many to stay away for important votes (p254).
There is extremism on both sides – it is not all the fault of the King. But the King is inconsistent and often when he has an advantage he either fails to follow through, or does not read Parliament well and overplays his hand. With the knowledge of the outcome it is disheartening to see how many opportunities there could have been for the avoidance of a civil war had one or other side been a bit more willing to compromise.
I would thoroughly recommend this book to anyone interested in parliamentary politics or English history. It will likely challenge your views on how the civil war started. And it is an engaging and readable book.
This book therefore overturns many pre-conceptions. Adamson demonstrates that at this early stage it was not the commons taking the lead, and that religion was not a main part of motivations. Instead, it was about the Lords, and as much about a group being out of power manoeuvring their way into power. Similarly, when most think of the civil war we think of Oliver Cromwell but here he is very much a minor player, even compared to many others in the Commons, who are mostly actually working with their faction in the Lords. This is perhaps one of the downsides of the book; ending before the civil war begins let alone the bloody conclusion leaves me wondering at what point and how this was turned upside down and the Commons became clearly dominant.
One of the things that struck me is how this book describes what might be considered the very earliest stages of party politics in England. The book is about parliamentary factions, and about how the titular nobles of the revolt win by organising their faction in a way that we would take for granted now but was revolutionary at the time. This makes it a very interesting read for anyone interested in the machinations of UK politics.
Adamson is excellent at setting scenes, for example this is done for the first day of the Earl of Strafford’s trial (pp.215-6) where we are told the Earl wore “the garb of grief and penitence”. The route to Parliament from the Tower with the “Damp and smoky” atmosphere evoked and the guard described in detail giving a real pen picture of what it would have been like to be there. This gives many parts of this book a novel like quality where we get to know the main characters such as King Charles and the Dukes of Bedford and Warwick. And, albeit with the problem that we know the outcome in advance, it has many plot twists on the way through.
Reflecting those twists I found my views shifting as the book progresses. I found myself initially rooting for the Junto of Lords against their exclusion by the King, but my sympathy shifted towards the King as they grow tyrannical themselves. For example, they transfer control over navy finances to themselves from the Admiralty (p364), or running the Commons as you would expect a mob-boss through fear forcing many to stay away for important votes (p254).
There is extremism on both sides – it is not all the fault of the King. But the King is inconsistent and often when he has an advantage he either fails to follow through, or does not read Parliament well and overplays his hand. With the knowledge of the outcome it is disheartening to see how many opportunities there could have been for the avoidance of a civil war had one or other side been a bit more willing to compromise.
I would thoroughly recommend this book to anyone interested in parliamentary politics or English history. It will likely challenge your views on how the civil war started. And it is an engaging and readable book.
August 29, 2014
An extremely detailed account of the origins of the Civil War - note not the war itself.
The focus is on the relatively little-known role of a section of the nobility in opposing Charles I. Oliver Cromwell scarcely gets a mention, and the mentions he does receive demonstrate that at this point of time he was merely a bit player.
This is a long book covering a relatively short period, and is probably only for those who are extremely interested in the subject. However, there is nothing difficult or stuffy about it, in fact it is a very pleasant and easy read.
The book demonstrates that those who opposed King Charles I simply did not trust him - and that they had very good reason for not trusting him.
The focus is on the relatively little-known role of a section of the nobility in opposing Charles I. Oliver Cromwell scarcely gets a mention, and the mentions he does receive demonstrate that at this point of time he was merely a bit player.
This is a long book covering a relatively short period, and is probably only for those who are extremely interested in the subject. However, there is nothing difficult or stuffy about it, in fact it is a very pleasant and easy read.
The book demonstrates that those who opposed King Charles I simply did not trust him - and that they had very good reason for not trusting him.
November 28, 2021
Let’s start with its shortcomings. This book is incredibly dry. This is not a reflection of the enormous detail that the book goes into concerning the years 1640-1642, but rather a criticism of the way in which the book was written. It could have been written in a more accessible way and it has the feel of a book which has been written for those with an already intimate knowledge of the subject matter.
There are vast tracts of the book which do not need to be there and there are endless repetitions of the names of those on the King’s side and those in Parliaments side. This over complication of the subject matter is shown in the 222 pages of notes and also includes the index.
However, the author does offer a different way of looking at why the three Kingdoms of King Charles I came to be at the point of civil war in 1642. From my own perspective I can now consider that the Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Argyll are as much to blame for the state of the three Kingdoms as was the impetuous and thin skinned King Charles. The thought that Warwick might have been eying up his chances of becoming King comes to the fore.
This book needed a more thorough editing process.
There are vast tracts of the book which do not need to be there and there are endless repetitions of the names of those on the King’s side and those in Parliaments side. This over complication of the subject matter is shown in the 222 pages of notes and also includes the index.
However, the author does offer a different way of looking at why the three Kingdoms of King Charles I came to be at the point of civil war in 1642. From my own perspective I can now consider that the Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Argyll are as much to blame for the state of the three Kingdoms as was the impetuous and thin skinned King Charles. The thought that Warwick might have been eying up his chances of becoming King comes to the fore.
This book needed a more thorough editing process.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 3, 2018
The best resource on the English Revolution, bar none.
July 25, 2021
A cogent, detailed and fascinating study of the political crisis from the Covenanter invasion of England to the arrest of the 5 members, focusing on the role of the nobility in the road to civil war.
I think it's particularly important in its emphasis on the minor role that religion played in the English buildup to 1642's all out crisis.
I think it's particularly important in its emphasis on the minor role that religion played in the English buildup to 1642's all out crisis.
August 23, 2007
nonfiction,history
August 11, 2012
very interesting read.
October 27, 2013
Eye-opening account of the two years leading up to Charles 1's retreat from London in 1642. Closely traces the political developments and is hugely enlightening.
Want to read
January 14, 2018Recommended by Leanda de Lisle
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews