john miller the stuarts review

Have a picture of John Miller The Stuarts?, please send it to us.

Average Ratings

Value for Money	7/10
Overall rating	7/10

Recommended

• Overview
• Reviews
• Write your review
• Ask a Question

By degbert on 3rd Jun 2008

degbert's Ratings

Format	Paperback
Value for money	7/10
Overall value	7/10
degbert's recommendation

Good Points

Fascinating and brave in equal measures, a brilliantly interesting and largely accessible account of a key era in British history.

Bad Points

However well it is depicted, this period faces an uphill struggle in terms of popular or mass-market accessibility, despite some notable events and individuals. The publishers were not enticed by pushing for a more mass-market appeal.

General Comments

I was not educated on this period of history at school, so I have no preconceptions; apart from of course some passing anecdotal information about the battles of the Civil War, Cromwell, Charles and his misplaced head, and ' " I think ' " a bit about William of Orange. But how that fed into the fabric of modern Britain, how this shaped our constitutional monarchy, how we ended up being governed by groups called Whigs and Tories, how we became a'United Kingdom ' , how we became, however accidentally, Protestant, was anything but clear. Miller attempts to cover the century or so of Stuart Dynasty rule, and in doing so covers many of these questions. Other questions, most notably how on earth did such a traditionally peaceable (at least at home) nation descend inconsolably into armed civil conflict, are also covered in depth, but even Miller has to hedge his bets on a summary of the causes ' " for me this remains something of a historical debate.
It started in 1603 when, without a suitable successor, the death of Queen Elizabeth saw the end of the Plantagenate rulers; the closest thing to a familial link (through Henry VIII sister Margaret's marriage to James IV of Scotland) was James VI, who then became ruler of England and Scotland, (he coined the term Great Britain) as James I of England, heralding the start of the Stuart dynasty. It was in the reign of his son, Charles I, where much of our history of the 17th century tends to be focused. Miller covers this in detail, but does not overdo it ' " indeed this account leaves, for me at least, several questions unanswered. The Cromwellian Republican interlude, Charles II, brother James II and his son-in-law William (who effectively deposed him) are presented thoughtfully, with insight and without losing any of the reader's interest.
Where I have to admit I rather struggled here is, in my ignorance, I wasn't clear where the Stuarts ended . As it was this was with Anne, who died without an heir in 1714, and the Prostestant-at-all-costs, George, a dyed-in-the-wool German, hurriedly ushered in. However while the ruling house changed hands then, the cultural or social history does not abruptly or conveniently end there. The continuing Jacobite dissention, which ran for a good few decades longer, creates an inextricable link that ' " for my money ' " it would have been appropriate to at least have a suitable'and beyond'chapter.
Having said that, Miller's book is nothing if not ambitious ' " squeezing a century of detail into a relatively short space, especially given the scope of change being described. This he achieves with a deftness of prose and lucid descriptions, and is comfortably the best account of the period I have read, and is a fantastic introduction to this important poque.

degbert's review has yet to be rated - Be the first!