7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Non-royal Charles, the People's King, May 13, 2005
In this wonderful book, Antonia chronicles the doings of the 17th-century royal Stuart family in such detail that I for one feel as though I lived among them. At this locus in space-time we probably know more about Charles II than did his own family. We know, for example, that he was a paid French agent for most of his reign.
That Charles II was the man for the job and the times and may have been Britain's best king is hard to dispute. He was certainly the first people's king. His handling of government foreshadowed the checks and balances developed more formally in the next century, but he did not formulate it into a doctrine. That is simply the way it happened.
The Stuarts acquired the throne of Britain through Mary, Queen of Scots, who descended from a Tudor. Elizabeth Tudor had her executed, but not before she married had a son with the unfortunate alcoholic, Darnley. The boy was taken from his mother to be raised a Protestant and became James I on the death of Elizabeth, who died without heir.
The reign of James I (of King James Bible fame) was happy and prosperous and his son, Charles I, was looking forward to the same. History did not smile on this upright but unlucky king. Society bolted under him, so to speak, and threw him from his horse. The Swiss reform crept down the Rhine and across the channel and lodged in Britain as numerous sects of Puritanism. Meanwhile, the creeping disease of enclosure, the seizure of formerly public lands by private individuals interested in raising sheep and selling wool, and the subsequent forced evacuation of those lands, was slowly but surely building a fury in the common man. Charles I found that he could not govern.
Successive parliaments called in the hope of financial relief became ever more unruly until at last they refused to be dismissed! Not the brightest man, though a decent one, Charles I failed to see the impending end of absolute monarchy. He made a fatal mistake, sending soldiers into parliament to arrest 5 MPs, who evaded him anyway. The English Civil War was on. The king ultimately surrendered to parliamentary forces. He might have been spared, but he refused to cooperate in any way with the diminution of the divine right of kings. The parliamentarians played their trump card of executing the king (1649), a blunder on their part. His death aroused mainly grief and horror.
Faced with overwhelming adversity, Charles II was not overwhelmed. He shone like the star he was. There are few other teen-age generals in history, but that is what he became fighting for his father, and alone after 1649. Often seen in the front line leading the charge, he was born under a lucky star, surviving somehow. Even Cromwell admitted that his last battle, the Battle of Worcester, was the hardest fought of the war. The king went dodging through the countryside, hiding out in a huge oak while the soldiers beat the bushes for him. He escaped to France and then other points, with the help mainly of ordinary people.
Charles' exile whetted his talents and forged his future. He and ragamuffin court were often without knowledge of the source of their next meal. He kept on wheeling and dealing, unsuccessfully. He lifted their spirits by creating a sort of ongoing pool party, which moved from country to country and estate to estate. They derived their emotional support from this circle of intimacy, which went on after the king was restored.
And he was restored. Cromwell died. His son, "Tumbledown Dick", was not up to the job of being the lord high protector of the Commonwealth. The army had kept Charles under constant surveillance wherever he went. They knew that he was an extraordinarily talented man. To avoid disintegration of the government and renewed conflict between factions, General Monck convinced parliament to restore Charles, rather suddenly, with but short notice, in 1660.
And what a resoration it was! A fleet of refurbished ships sailed from Holland and a small army of royalists dressed in the very finest uniforms money could buy paraded through the streets of London with the king flanked by his brothers, all at the center of a roaring crowd. The king knew exactly what they wanted and he spared no expense to give it to them. He had thoroughly learned that God may give kings a divine right to rule, but only through the medium of the people.
The party went on. Charles and his wife and mistresses and a total of 12 illegitimate children lived happily together in Whitehall Palace. The queen, a Portuguese princess, was unfortunately barren, but the king did not desert her on that account. He was content to pass on the succession to his brother, James II. The author compares this arrangement to that of the cruel Henry the 8th, who executed his successive wives so that he could get on to the next one. The king owned horses, dogs and yachts. Sometimes he raced his own horses. He associated freely with all walks of life. He despised to put on royal airs.
Meanwhile a steady stream of sparks flew from the flint of his creative genius. He forgave his enemies (except the regicides). He was as often in parliament as the MPs themselves, arguing his point of view himself. He created the first standing army in Britain, using its offices as a means to reward friends and placate enemies. He founded the Royal Society, built the observatory at Greenwich, built a hospital, personally assisted in fighting the great fire of London, and hired Christopher Wren to rebuild the burned area.
In politics the king and parliament often disagreed. He called them when he needed money. They passed laws and granted or refused the money. All the same old issues still existed, but now neither side was willing to start a civil war over them. King and parliament in fact checked and balanced each other, even though no constitution defined them. Seeking to be less dependent on parliament, the king made a secret treaty with Louis the 14th, by which he would become a pro-French advocate in exchange for a large annuity. It wasn't as bad as it seems. The king's mother was French. Family connections were already in place. The king had to agree to become Catholic, which he only dared to do on his deathbed, after apologizing for taking so long to die.
This work by Fraser might as well have been an epic poem, lacking only the versification. We laugh or weep as it soars into sublimity or pathos and we yawn at the tedious details of the king's devious machinations. A word of warning. The author takes a totally royalist view. She has no space or inclination to present the details of the rebel cause. Reading this book, we wonder why those stubborn parliamentary fools held out against such a jolly good fellow as the king. Perhaps the lives of the Stuarts were so interesting and momentous as to compel their biographers to loyalty.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No