The kings and queens of England Book

I think it’s a lot of fun to go through the monarchs in this format, and the profiles were generally good, but in some places I found certain takes a bit misleading (or controversial) or found that they missed out details that I thought important. Although the UK is often criticised for maintaining a monarchy, it’s actually quite inspiring to see how the various dynasties held their positions even when rulers across Europe were being deposed. In general, I enjoyed reviewing all the kings and queens again and think the book is rather handy, even if it isn’t exactly how I would have written it myself.

A few gripes I had include the following:

• I think it’s worth mentioning that, although often recognised as a ‘human rights bill’ (as the book calls it), the Magna Carta was really drafted to cement the rights of John’s barons, and didn’t contain much in the interests of ordinary people. (I feel like this is an issue that often needs clearing up.)

• No mention of Elizabeth Woodville in Edward IV’s profile, although she played a pretty important role in the changing politics of his reign. (Also no mention of Margaret of Anjou for Henry VI, even though she played an important role in his reign and caused a lot of controversy by overpowering him.)

• I’m not sure I agree that there’s ‘strong’ evidence (beyond Tudor propaganda) that Richard III killed the Princes in the Tower – at the very least, it’s still unclear. It might have been worth mentioning that Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII’s mother, is another likely culprit. (Also worth noting that he wasn’t nearly as deformed as the Tudors made him out to be, but to be fair we discovered his body some years after this book was published.)

• Interestingly positive view of Henry VIII – skims over his six wives and the two beheadings, and no mention of the dissolution of the monasteries or the fact that he almost bankrupted the country.

• I would have given Lady Jane Grey her own page, since other short-lived monarchs (e.g. Edward V and Edward VIII) are included, and it always seems a bit unfair to me when she is cut out of the narrative, even though her reign is disputed. (Maybe include the Empress Matilda too to balance things out.)

• For Mary I, I think it would have been worth mentioning loss of Calais (since it had such a profound and devastating impact on her), her phantom pregnancy / tumor, and why her marriage didn’t work out – from most sources, it seems she was attracted to Philip and wanted to make it work, but he didn’t take so well to her and wasn’t in the country enough for them to have a child together as she had wanted.

• I’m not sure what the evidence is that Elizabeth I was unhappy? Of course, she never married, but made it clear during her own reign that this was of her own choice (being put off the prospect for life after what happened to her mother), and I would like to think the successes of her reign would have pleased her as an intellectual and a compassionate ruler – she chose to devote herself to making her country prosperous (hence declaring herself ‘married to England’), and she succeeded.

• I think it would have been nice to mention Shakespeare for the Elizabeth I / James I profiles – particularly for the latter, a reference to Macbeth being written for his pleasure would illustrate his interest in magic and belief in divine kingship in a way most people will register (just a thought). (Also could have mentioned that Guy Fawkes was part of a group – it wasn’t just him.)

• Without wanting to go into too much detail, I think the book sells George III a little short (as many histories tend to do) – he was a pretty successful king and oversaw plenty of innovation (including the industrial revolution) before he went mad (and some scholars have disputed even this; he may have had a nervous system problem that didn’t actually affect his mind).

• I’m not sure I would agree that Edward VIII ‘tried his best’ at the monarchy: even before the Wallace Simpson scandal, he was always more interested in partying than learning to become a good monarch (though it was always clear he would inherit). I think most people today would view his choice to abdicate for the sake of personal happiness more generously, though.

• I was surprised by how controversial a view the author was willing to take on Elizabeth II, our current monarch: I would agree that she’s led a ‘blameless’ life, but I think the decline of the empire is something most people would recognise as a good thing (or as an inevitable case of the world ‘moving on’ from the past), but its legacy of a more connected and English-speaking world has remained. As for the monarchy themselves, I’m not sure republican sentiment is any stronger now than it has frequently been in the past (you will never get everyone to agree on this issue) and I think they will recover from the scandals of the past (if they haven’t already). However, I realise much of this is a matter of opinion (and more difficult to judge without the gift of hindsight), and I think the author is right to note that the monarchy always seems to weather the storm.