"Edward the Elder" by Michael John Kay

 

The River Great Ouse at Bedford was once the frontier between the Saxons and the Vikings. Edward crossed the river to capture Bedford during his reign.

Edward the Elder was the son of Alfred the Great, King of Wessex. Alfred is justly celebrated for resisting Viking incursions into the territory of Wessex, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom that covered most of southern England, and reaching a long-lasting peace treaty with the Vikings, albeit one that recognised a split between the Anglo-Saxon part of England (Wessex and half of Mercia, the kingdom in the Midlands, against the Welsh border) and the Viking part (called the Danelaw). But Edward was the King who, with his sister Aethelflaed who was Queen of Mercia) took the fight to the Vikings, retrieving the Midlands and East Anglia. Edward's son Aethlestan was to continue the fight, liberating almost all of what is now England, and creating the unified country that we now have.

So Edward (called the Elder by later generations to distinguish him from Edward the Confessor) is a very important figure in English history and one who has been unjustly overlooked, overshadowed, perhaps, by his father. This biography puts Edward back in the limelight.

It also tells his story remarkably well. My only quibble is that the writer frequently tells you the same thing twice, for example, when he describes the boundary between Wessex-Mercia and the Danelaw, the second time in slightly more detail. But if this is the price to pay for a complicated tale to be told with clarity, so be it, although it does make the book longer (and the print is quite small so my ageing eyes found it sometimes wearisome).

It is a complicated tale. A patchwork of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms battled against a miscellany of Scandinavian marauders. The situation was rarely coherent. Given that all this happened over a thousand years ago, the sources are often either missing, possibly inaccurate or incomplete. The author does a great job or pinpointing dates and places without being overly nit-picking (for example, he tends to summarise scholarly opinion without going into the details). The result is a readable history for the general reader.

I loved it. So many of the places that appear are places I have known, such as Kingston-on-Thames were Edward (probably) and Aethelstan (definitely) had their coronations, sitting on a block of sarsen stone. And Bedford, a frontier town, whose Viking stronghold on the northern bank of the River Great Ouse surrendered to Edward, at which point he built a neighbouring fortified burh on the southern bank. And London where, the Roman city having been abandoned, the Vikings ruled Lundenwic before the Saxons retook the city moving the centre (around 883) back to the Roman ruins as Lundenburh. 

But it's not all warfare. There are lots of other interesting tales and mysteries, such as: Why did Edward ditch his first wife Ecgwyn and send his son by that relationship to be brought up by his sister in Mercia? Was she a concubine as was hinted? And why did Edward's first heir die only fourteen days after Edward; was he assassinated by his half-brother? And who was the nun abducted from Wimborne Minster by Edward's cousin Aethelwold during his first rebellion; was she Edward's sister Aethelgifu and did Aethelwold marry her and if so was it consensual?

This is the story of a critical period in the founding of the country we now know as England and this great book rescues Edward from the neglect of history.

Selected quotes:

• “The slave trade was part of accepted practice, with slaves bought and sold across markets throughout the known world.” (Ch 16)

January 2024; 263 pages

This review was written by the author of Bally and Bro, Motherdarling  and The Kids of God

"The Three Edwards" by Thomas B Costain

 The third in the "Pageant of England" tetralogy, a sequel to The Conquering Family and The Magnificanet Century.

Not so much the Whig view of history as a no-holds-barred Tory view in which the 'greatness' of a country is measured by military success. Thus Edwards I and III were great Kings and Edward II a disastrous weakling. There are heroes (Robert the Bruce and William Wallace, the Black Prince, John Wycliff etc) and there are villains (Piers Gaveston and the Despensers, Alice Perrers and John of Gaunt and any number of dastardly foreigners). And Costain loves a good story. Although he sometimes points out the lack of evidence for some of his tales, all the classics are here, such as the presentation to the Welsh lords of the first Prince of Wales, a child who spoke no English (because he was the recently born King's son). This is myth retold as if it were history and told for the purpose of encouraging patriotism. It is about great men and wicked men and matters such as economic conditions and complex characters are downplayed. It is racist ("There have always been forces at work in the world which over-ride justice. The sufferings that the defeated Saxons endured for two centuries were gradually forgotten in the fusion of the two races. Who will say that the Indians of North America should have been allowed to keep the continent for themselves?"; I, 9.1) and sexist ("She might have glanced slyly out of the corner of a starry eye at stout London aldermen and swished her scented wiliecoats at court receptions, but this was no more than the habitual exercise in mass subjugation in which beautiful women indulge"; II, 6.3) It is, in short, simplistic. But not naive. Not innocent. I think Costain understands the propaganda value of his stories. 

Selected quotes:

• "Used at first for decoration only, on books and purses and scabbards as well as clothes, the button began to prove its utility in holding clothes closer to the body, thereby providing greater warmth and accentuating (where the ladies were concerned) the gentle curve of the figure." (I, 6.1) He really can't resist a sexist aside.
• "Even opportunities for reading were limited, the royal library consisting of three books." (I, 6.2)
•  "He remained single all his life because he had no time for matrimony and perhaps also because of an admiration for the fair sex so general that he could not find one to exclude all others from his mind." (III, 16.2)
• "The battlefields where great warriors died are so encroached upon by modern villas and so befouled by the rotting remains of motorcars and the staves of oil barrels that they do not always repay a visit." (III, 17.2)

September 2021; 467 pages

This review was written by the author of Motherdarling  and The Kids of God

"King Charles II" by Antonia Fraser

They say that biographers fall in love with their subjects. Antonia Fraser seems to be one of many ladies to have fallen for the charms of King Charles II.

I can understand how the similarities have promoted the affection:

• Antonia Fraser is pro-royalty; she herself believes she is entitled to be called 'Lady' Antonia Fraser because she is the daughter of a hereditary earl. 
• Antonia Fraser is a Roman Catholic and Charles allegedly became a Catholic on his deathbed

But the biographer's bias shows. She appears to believe that Charles was an astute political operator whose reign brought blessings on his realm. I think Charles was lucky to become King after eighteen years of civil war and republicanism, when the republican government was in chaos after the death of Cromwell so that consequently people were frightened of a return to civil war. He had a long honeymoon period as a result of this but as his reign went on things started going wrong. For example, five years after he was restored there was the Great Plague, the year after brought both the Great Fire of London and the disastrous Anglo-Dutch naval war. And then the mask of the Merry Monarch started to slip:

• He called Parliament regularly in order to squeeze taxes from them to fund his extravagant court and his wars; when they sought legislation he regularly prorogued parliament to prevent this happening.
• Printers and publishers were pilloried and penalized for producing dissenting opinions. (C 25)
• He tried to ensure that the judiciary were Tory and insisted that they held their posts not, as before, until they did something to forfeit them, but at the royal pleasure. “By the end of 1683 eleven judges had been removed - at the King's wish.” (C 25)
• Members of Parliament who disagreed with him were, sometimes, locked up in the Tower. There was a debate about whether the King’s prorogation of Parliament had exceeded the limits so that Parliament was automatically dissolved (which would require a General Election before a new Parliament could be called. “The King was furious.” The leaders of the opposition were imprisoned in the Tower. (C 21) 
• He tried to gerrymander Parliament. At the time MPs were selected by chartered cities and boroughs. He found pretexts to withdraw a number of charters of places that returned MPs he didn't like and amended the charters so that the appointment of corporation officials was subject to a veto from the King; since these were the people who selected the MPs he was effectively trying to 'stack' parliament. “The excuse for giving for calling in the charter of York had at least a nice period touch to it. The Lord Mayor was said to have refused a mountebank permission to erect a stage, although the fellow had been recommended by the King himself.” (C 25) “The varied popular reaction was less important than the fact that the warrants on the new charters all contained the vital clause which gave the King a veto over the election of the officers. Suitable Tory figures locally would see to it that equally suitable Tory figures were returned to Westminster.” (C 25)
• He ruled for long periods without Parliament. Since he was therefore unable to raise extra taxes he made a secret treaty with the King of France (Louis XIV) who paid him secret subsidies. He therefore became an English King in the pay of a French one (and this secretly so that the public, Parliament and indeed most of his ministers, never found out). One would have thought this would have been an impeachable offence in any other person but Antonia Fraser never censures Charles. 

AF chronicles all these things but seems content with them. It seems that an autocratic ruler is OK with her provided that he is charming (and, of course, with the true royal blood running in his veins).

For example, in 1673, Charles indulges in that typical gesture of autocrats, a display of military might. 

“When he drew up the army at Blackheath in the autumn of 1673, it was a gesture widely interpreted as menacing towards the capital. But no evidence has ever been found that Charles II intended to parody in such a way the actions (and mistakes) of his predecessor Cromwell.” (C 20) Although AF acknowledges that it was "widely interpreted as menacing" she acquits Charles of any such intent and at the same time manages to smear Cromwell who, if he was an autocrat, had at least achieved his position through merit rather than by virtue of his parents.

As with so many histories and biographies I was enchanted by some of the details:

• Charles was so dark he was nicknamed The Black Boy, a name still commemorated in English pub signs. (C 1)
• At the Battle of Edgehill the young princes Charles and James “were left in the charge of Dr William Harvey, the famous physician” (C 2)
• When Charles was in exile in France, it was the time of the Fronde “from the stone bearing sling” rebellion (C 4)
• In France the Peace of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War was swiftly followed by the Fronde rebellion: “The granary of this particular peace contained within it the seeds of popular dissidence” (C 5)
• Attempting to escape England, Charles missed one boat because the captain was locked in his bedroom by his wife who suspected he was having an affair. (C 8)
• The word yacht comes from the Dutch jaght schip (hunt ship). (C 11) 
• When Charles's new bride, Portuguese Catherine of Braganza, arrived in England “one of her first actions was to ask for a cup of tea ... tea drinking had been known in England before this date but it was extremely rare.” (C 13)
• The ‘CABAL’ of Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale gained power after the downfall of Hyde. (C 16)
• “In November 1670 the Dublin Gazette actually ceased to appear on the wonderful - for Ireland - grounds that ‘there was no news’.” (C 19)
• When the king had a fever he was cured by “by ‘the Jesuit’s powder’, actually an early form of quinine imported from the South American bark cinchona.” (C 23)

Other memorable moments:

• “Less admirable attributes may take root in the wintry soil of adversity. These include the ability to mislead or trick” (C 6)
• “Having lit a candle to the devil, King Charles II could not expect other lights to shine as well.” (C 6)
• “The Scots were probably not a people it was immediately possible to love, if you had been nurtured in the courts of England and France.” (C 6)
• The Duke of Buckingham “sulked in the most childish and public manner ... refusing to change his linen in protest.” (C 7)
• “Frances Stewart could claim to have possessed the heart, as opposed to that more frequently bestowed gift, the body of King Charles II.” (C 15)
• The General Election of 1679 was “marked by such heavy drinking on all sides that ‘Sober Societies’ were later formed in towns - an interesting example of locking the stable door after the horse has fully refreshed itself.” (C 22)
• The Duke of Monmouth: “He could not ... conceive of a course of action or an opinion without wishing to give it immediate expression. ... he was one of nature's roosters and could not emulate a mole to save his life.” (C 22)
• “As Buckingham rightly observed, a King is supposed to be the Father of his People, and Charles II was certainly the father of a good many of them.” (C 24)
• In 1682 the Duke of York was “shipwrecked off Yarmouth with much loss of life, although as James himself rather callously remarked, no one ‘of quality’ was drowned. ... It was his entourage who beat off the desperate ‘lesser’ passengers with their swords.” (C 25)

An interesting biography of a monarch but rather spoiled by the biographer's obvious bias. Charles II was a charming man who, probably because the English were still scarred from the Civil War, managed to preserve his throne despite his absolutist policies. His brother lasted only three years following the same direction before being overthrown and replaced with the first monarch who ruled with Parliament, rather than despite them. 

December 2019, 469 pages

Also written by Antonia Fraser:

• The Gunpowder Plot