Customer Reviews

Dynasty: The Stuarts: 1560-1807

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

MacLeod's book is best in the areas of least interest, namely the early Scottish Stuarts. Unfortunately, it is at its weakest in discussing the family's 17th Century English kings, who provide far more interesting subjects. Nonetheless, MacLeoed approaches them in a rather cursory and one dimensional manner which leaves a motivated reader rather unsatisfied. His closest approach to approval of any of these is for Charles II, but even then he damns this most fascinating and underrated of monarchs (in view of the challenges he faced) with faint praise.

More troubling, MacLeod demonstrates an open and excessive anti-Catholic bias rarely exhibited over the last half century. In doing so, he devalues the more modern and tolerant approaches to religious policy desired by the later Stuart kings, but which were frustrated by parliament and revolution. At the same time, he is slavish in his devotion to such premodern bigots as Cromwell and William of Orange. Still, he is no Macauley in this enterprise and I would recommend, instead, the second volume of Simon Schama's splendid History of Britain to the reader seeking a casual treatment of this subject area. Schama goes into almost as much depth as MacLeod, but is a vastly better writer and is considerably fairer in his evaluations of both individuals and issues.

I've always been fascinated by the Stuarts, and have done my fair share of reading about them, so this book was a shoo-in on my Xmas list. And I'm glad I got it! In no particular order, here are my observations:

*The book is written from a Scottish perspective, which I liked because it gave some new angles. In most books the Stuarts seem to burst full-blown on the scene, with little space given to their background and history in Scotland. Indeed, Scotland itself usually gets only a cameo appearance here and there, and then only in the context of its perpetual alliance with France. This book remedies that, devoting a good bit of detail to the Stewart/Stuart family history and their relationship to their mother country. The role of Scottish affairs in the politics of the day is also treated, which gave me some new insights, which I very much liked.

*The book is very readable, dealing with the Stuarts in terms of their personalities and personal lives more than their role in politics. If you want an exhaustive treatment of the political aspects of their reigns, this might not suit you, but it does bring the monarchs to life.

*The author presents the strengths and weaknesses of the Stuarts pretty forcefully, but without telling the reader what to think. His description of James II, for example, begins with a repeating litany of how "stupid" (his word) James was, but then compliments James on his eye for detail and military ability. It's left for the reader to decide what outweighs what. That can be a little disjointing, but in the end I appreciated it because it will make the reader want to check out other books to help him/her make up his/her mind.

*The chapter on Charles II points up, yet again, the crying need for a new biography of Catherine of Braganza. I just cannot understand why she always gets glossed over, when she lived a long, eventful, and interesting life. Just for the fact that she introduced tea drinking to England, you would think she'd be sacred to the British, but somehow she keeps getting swept under the rug. I keep hoping to see someone write a bio, but it has yet to happen.

*There are a few Scottish words sprinkled through the book that American readers will need to look up. I won't spoil it for you, but just have a dictionary or Web connection somewhere in the house for when you come across one.

Inevitably, a book this size can really only give a slightly detailed overview of the monarchs. I wish it could've been twice as long, with twice the detail, because it was a really enjoyable read. I would recommend for a Stuart newbie that you read this but also be sure to read a book from an English perspective to get a fuller picture. You won't be sorry you bought this one, though.

No question that, from a modern prospective, the vast majority of Stuart monarchs were tragi-comic characters. What is inexcusable is that this book was published with all its anti-Catholic balderdash. It is a motley collection of undocumented assertions and I should have known not to buy this book when I saw it had no bibliography.

Before reviewing this book, some truth in advertising is in order. A branch of my family was exiled to the new world in 1711 for supporting the Stuarts. As the ancestor of someone who was willing to stake his entire life and fortune, such as it was, I feel uniquely qualified to render judgement on the subject of John Macleod's history, Dynasty: The Stuarts 1560-1807.


Macleod approaches the Stuarts collectively and individually. Despite their undoubted charisma (which persists to the present day), they were some of the weakest rulers in British history and also the most inept.

It could be argued that what one saw played out in England were the Stewart family genes at war with the Tudor ones that flowed freely, perhaps a little too freely in some instances in the Stuart kings of England and Scotland in the 17th century.

The Stewarts became the royal family of Scotland whenWalter Stewart married Marjorie, daughter of Robert the Bruce in 1314. Their son David became king in 1371. The subsequent Stewarts were miserable rulers, a talent that appeared at various times after their descendents became also the kings of England.

Thanks to her marriage to James IV of Scotland, Margaret Tudor provided the legitimacy for her great grandson James (VI of Scotland, I of England) to ascend the throne. The Tudor inheretance included superb capacity for learning, artistic temperament, a certain cunning capacity for statecraft and diplomacy, both at home and abroad.

Macleod begins his tale in earnest with Mary Queen of Scots. I must confess that I find this particular member of the family somewhat feckless and at times annoying by her willingness to be ruled by her heart over her head. In the end this is what led her to lose her own by her plots and counter plots against the more intelligent and gifted Elizabeth I. Ineptitude at this sort of thing would mark the dynasty at various subsequent periods. Gloriana was likely disgusted by her cousin's antics, more appropriate for a film star (Lana Turner, Elizabeth Taylor) than a regent queen. The one successful effort on Mary's part was her taciturn son, King James he succeeded Elizabeth in 1603. I would quarrel with Macleod on his characterization of Mary which seems unduely sentimental. Most of her problems were of her own making. She would have gotten further had she kept her own council and not imagine the world (particularly her royal cousin) to be something that she could just charm.

James I of England, despite his sponsorship of a translation of the Bible that is still in use, was not a popular ruler, and like most of his fellow Stuarts not very popular. His greatest and most defining traits were his horrible table manners and his attachment to male favorites who were paraded by many of the leading families as a way to increase their own influence. He did achieve a certain sympathy when the Catholics performed the one act that ensured England would remain Protestant forever and this was to attempt the infamous gunpowder plot to blow up the king, royal family, and Parliament. He was given over to pedantry and his favorites and lacked the abilities necessary to be a great king. His son Charles was to be even worse.

Charles I was possibly one of the most inept rulers in English and Scottish history (and given his family's record, this is saying a great deal). Plunging one's country into civil war is generally not the mark of a successful ruler and that is precisely what Charles did. His rule from the time of his first parliament in 1625 was one long series of blunders leading straight to the block. He was a keen collector of art and his court was one of the most glamorous and high-minded at the same time. He was an inept and addicted to plots of various kinds, showing the same skill that his grandmother had in politics and with much the same results. The Venuses and Madonnas from continental artists convinced his puritan opponents that Charles was using tax money to fund pornographic and blasphemous art (preoccupations of 20th century American Puritans whenever they needed to distract the populace from policy failures). His son, Charles II would show them what a really immoral court looked like, but since Cromwell had proven to be such a killjoy no one really cared.

Charles II was one of the two really great rulers of the age. Though not as successful as his niece, who was the real brains in family (an assessment of mine which I believe Macleod would disagree), he was a great manager of affairs. There was Parliament itself to manage, which though initially generous soon proved to be a problem in the later years. There were the numerous disasters of his reign, the plague and the fire of London. Cultural life was managed as well with the court being one of the most brilliant if also most decadent in English history. There were also foreign affairs and his attempt to reach an understanding with Louis XIV (this was a failure in the end), there were all those mistresses, surely his greatest achievement was personally increasing the ranks of the English nobility with his own hosts of bastards by these women.

One of Macleod's shortcomings is to become all too much wrapped up with the age old question of one of these illegitimate children, the Duke of Monmouth, himself a feckless and inept plotter and very much a Stuart in the worst possible sense of the family's heritage. Macleod wonders whether Charles might have had a legitimate son in Monmouth and Charles was unwilling to acknowledge him due to some mysterious arrangement with continental Catholicism.

This notion is verging on the silly side of things. Despite a reputation for being a great rake (one of the greatest in all English history), Charles did also believe in marriage. If he would not divorce his barren Portugese queen to get himself a real heir (Charles not being the problem in this department, clearly), he probably would not refuse to acknowledge a legitimate marriage with Monmouth's mother, Lucy Walters.

It was a battle of the inept would be rulers of England when Monmouth attempted to seize the throne from his uncle James II. James would later find himself outclassed in 1688 when he sought to divide the Protestants and reintroduce Catholicism and William of Orange (his nephew and son-in-law) took the throne from him with the help of the old Whig families. James fled to France where he remained a fixture of the court at Versailles and his progeny were remembered as pretenders to the throne. If anything the role that Parliament played in determining the succession gave lie to the assertion that only God could make a king.

William of Orange and his wife Mary ruled jointly until Mary's death in 1694. His focus was a duel with Louis XIV on the continent and largely driven by William's understanding of foreign affairs and England's natural role in preserving the balance of power on the continent. Louis's attempts to make France preeminent were thwarted, at least initially by William. His successor would do far better in this regard.

In Anne, the house of Stuart reached its apogee. Macleod's characterization of her is probably not fair at all. She was, like Elizabeth surrounded by capable men who were never quite able to manage her completely. She knew her own mind and she stayed true to her principles. By her life's end, she had formerly united England and Scotland into the kingdom of Great Britain, defeated Louis and given England its greatest land victory since Agincourt, laid the groundwork for the Augustin literary age, and set the new kingdom well on the road to the development of the British Empire. Not bad for someone described as "dull" by Macleod. Anne was not the most scintillating of companions, as her letters to Sarah Churchill and her husband the Duke of Marlborough demonstrate. She was remarkably capable and deserves better than what she receives at the hands of Macleod.

The remainder of the book deals with the attempts of the descendants of James II to recover the throne from their Hanoverian cousins. Here the level of fecklessness reached new heights, Had these Stuarts only recalled the actions of their ancestor Henri IV, who embraced the majority religion of France in order to rule, they might still be on the throne today. Instead an insistance on Catholicism cost them the throne.

The last member of the family to recapture any of the former glamour was Bonnie Prince Charlie. He was remarkably success in making his way down to England and came close to London itself before being defeated. He was the man who could have been king had he shown more tact, greater ability to master the politics of the time and a greater resilience than other members of his immediate family demonstrated. His defeat at the battle of Culloden in1746 at the hands of the Duke of Cumberland marked the end of the Stuart family's attempts to win the crown. What opportunities might have presented themselves when Charlie's brother was consecrated as a cardinal declaring once and for all no compromise on the relgious question. In the end his luck and his family turned against him. He spent his days in Rome, drinking himself to death.

The last member of the dynasty was Henry, the grandson of James II as well. Made a cardinal, he was morbidly afraid of women and preferred men and boys as did his great great grandfather James I. He ended his days somewhat shabbily, being forced in the end to accept a pension from George III, such was the awe that this prince of the church inspired in his English Hanoverian cousins. He, his father and brother are all entombed in St Peter's.

This is a good book on the Stuart dynasty. I think it is very much influenced by Lady Antonia Fraser (herself the product of one of Charles II's mistresses, Barbara Palmer, Lady Castlemaine) and her attempts to rehabilitate the Stuarts. While Macleod does more than taut the party line, disagreeing with Fraser on several points, he is clearly indebted to her for many of his characterizations. This book is good if one is looking for a quick overview of 17th century politics at the top. I would argue that some of Lady Antonia's books are also worth reading (she is one of the world's most charming women). The two books that make up the Stuart period of the Oxford History of England, Miller's biography of Charles II, Gregg's on Anne are better still

Macleod is a very Scots journalist, living in the Outer Hebrides and the author of several other well-received works of popular Scots history. He shares to some extent the emotionally nationalistic fondness for the Jacobite cause, though he's certainly not blind to the failings of most of the Stuart monarchs. But he's right to point out the key role of the family in the development of representative government in Great Britain, if only by providing bad examples and thereby giving focus to the anti-royal, pro-democratic cause. The Stuarts were largely incompetent when they ruled only Scotland; when James VI came to the English throne as James I, the canvas of failure became much broader. At the same time, the Stuarts tended to be personally courageous and have happy marriages (unlike their Hanoverian successors), and they had a strong and sincere religious streak. And in art and architecture, they possessed an exquisite taste. Most of all, the author believes, the Stuarts had charisma and glamour -- and they had bad luck. Macleod tells the story in a free-swinging, enthusiastically vivid prose style that includes a sense of humor in detailing the failings of his royal subjects. The principal downside I found is a tendency to criticize Roman Catholicism (and apparently to assume sexual deviation as endemic to it) and to laud Presbyterianism. Otherwise, he appears to be factually accurate -- at least for the pre-Civil War period. Though the book is completely lacking in scholarly apparatus, it's not a bad introduction to the history of the Stuart family in Scotland and England.

Having read a few books devoted to different people and aspects of the Stuart years, I was looking for this kind of overview. This book did the job and had the dimension of a Scottish perview -quite fitting since this is the home of the Stuarts.

I'm a lay reader, but found this complicated story easy to follow with the expection of some of the church politics, esp. those of the Kirk.

The section on Mary Queen of Scotts (who's story is well known) was a bit long, but otherwise the balance was good. There was interesting material on Mary's father, and I am even more intrigued by her unsung mother, Mary Guise, who held this difficult kingdom together for many years despite being foreign, Catholic and female.

Mary had the most famous botched monarchy, but her progeny didn't do any better. It just took the men a little longer to wreck things for themselves and others. Amazing, that after all the turmoil of the Stuarts, and relative calm of Cromwell, (as MacLeod tells it) the people still wanted a monarch. To these American eyes, the Stuarts seem far too much trouble for whatever it is they were perceived to have contributed. The affection for James II, upon his death, demonstrates the emotional conflict the people seemed to have about this institution.

James I and VI seemed to understand his role and the day to day administration of things. He seems to be a good hearted, intelligent and complex hillbilly. His son and grandsons appear to want to BE king, but since they feel they are chosen by God there is no need to involve the people ("clean different things", says Charles I). They were oblivious to the chaos they caused.

These monarchs grew up in uncertainty and turmoil with minimal parental guidance. To this, add a Messiah complex, but it's a Messiah complex without a cause other than wearing a crown. I'd be interested in a psychologist's view, something like "The Stuarts on the Couch".

This is fascinating history, especially in contrast to the button down risk averse holders of this office in recent years.

A welcome guide to the complex era of the Stuarts. No dry and boring stuff here. Macleod peppers the text with opinion (generally correct - debunks the current vogue of labeling folks such as Queen Anne and William III as homosexuals for example), making for a quick read, and not a bad introduction to the period.

Not an all-encompassing history (try works by Coward for that, or Fraser's Charles II for a definitive biography) of the time, but focusses on the Scots point of view, introducing this American to a few new "scottish-isms".

Overall, a fun book on a highly complex period of British history.

My old college sociology professor once wrote a book entitled, "Nuts, Sluts, and Perverts." It's too bad that this name had been taken for it would have been an excellent title for this book. The Stewarts were indeed a strange lot and John MacLeod has given us a good account of their lives.

The author's story really begins with Mary Queen of Scots, although he does spend a little time on her predecessors. From the tragic figure of Mary, MacLeod takes the reader through to the last of the line, Henry IX, the brother of Bonnie Prince Charlie. For the most part these people just seem to have been in over their heads and two of them literally lost their heads. There were some accomplishments under the Stewarts however, most notably during the reigns of Charles II and Queen Anne. To be honest, it might have been hard for any dynasty to last through this period in English history. With Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Puritans, Quakers, and several other groups in a virtual state of war with each other these Stewart wardens of the asylum had their work cut out for them.

The most telling story in this work clearly illustrates the almost comic opera that was the Clan Stewart. Charles II had several illegitimate children, one of whom made every effort to take the throne from James II upon Charles' death. Finally James had had enough and his nephew lost his head. Shortly after the execution someone decided that the deceased had left behind very few portraits. They therefore sewed the head back on and had one last portrait painted.

This book is written as a popular history and the author clearly states that there is no new information to be found in his work. Those who have studied the Stewarts (I prefer the Scottish spelling) before will not want to bother with this book. On the other hand, for those of us who know very little of this dynasty and have had a hard time trying to figure out the who is who of the Stewart line, this is a very helpful book. It's not too deep and overwhelming but just a basic look at the facts. Sometimes however the author's sentence structure is a little hard to follow and there is a tendency to use phrases from various languages without a translation. Also, while MacLeod may have been trying to give his reader a feel for the times, there does seem to be some anti-Catholic bias to be found. He also goes a little over the top in his comments about Queen Anne's weight, to the point of being silly in fact.

In spite of these flaws however, this book would be a good start for someone just beginning to delve into Scottish or English history. I enjoyed it a great deal.

I found the early chapters on the Stewart dynasty interesting, but then the Reformation reared its head, and the author's objectivity went out the window. I could take assertions that the Puritans weren't bigoted with a grain of salt ( doubt that the American Indians, Quakers and Catholics would have agreed). What bothered me how the book gradually degenerated into Good Protestans vs. Wicked, Pederastic Catholics.

History belongs to the victor. The stuarts were not victorious so history has not been kind to them - mind you they were not the most noble of families either ! Like all scots their's was a tribal mindset and this contributed to their downfall as well as moving further ands further (back) into the Roman Catholic Church - not a wise move if your ancestors were Presbyterian or your masses were Anglican ! The reader of this book will be enlightened to a period in Scottish and world history little understood. It is why a Nationalist Protestant Scot can be a Jacobite for the sake of Scottish rule but cringe at the thought of a Catholic on the throne in the same breath.

John Macleod is a gifted writer - he conveys depth in a style that is refreshing - he makes no attempt to conceal the fact that his work is a popular history as is his previous work The Highlanders - A History of the Gaels (a good read as well). Do not read this if you are expecting references to other works except a few at the back. The style of John Macleod does not allow for this - which is why it flows so well.

Some of the insights that i learnt included that the King James from the King James Bible fame actually was a Scot, being the son of the famous Mary Queen of Scots. As well as being a very gifted and knowledgable individual he was a barbarian in his attitude to life and property. I plead ignorance to anything of Royalty - I am an Australian. This book also allows the reader to pick up on errors in protocol such as the current english queen actually being Elizabeth the First - because under the union of the crowns the Scots line came first - but as with many things the scots were outdone by their tribal (clan) nature and the evil english !

What struck me the most about this particular work is that as you read the constant calamities that befell the Family your actually start to feel for their stupidity - Bonnie Prince Charles came withina wisker - if he had the ticker - of taking back the crown ! You see them as a family with weakness that was expliotated by all and sundry - the coup de grace was of course the switch to a portestant Royal line with the Hannoverians - some 34 places out of succession - to call this illegal does not do this cruel twist of fate justice.

THere is of course some overlap between this work and Macleods previous as you would expect with any literary individual - the one draw back in this work was that the pretenders chapter is short I would have like it to be longer with perhaps some more detail - but to be honest after the Hannoverians ascended to the throne the stuarts really did just disappear. Alas the Bear Gates will not be opened for some time.

I recommend this work of some 360 pages which has a few illustrations as well. It will make you look at a period of time through Scottish eyes and realise that although the stuarts were their own worst enemy they also certainly brought to life a period of history that otherwise may have been written off as dull.