Laura Brennan

The basics of the life of James no-last-name-at-birth-but-eventually-Scott, Duke of Monmouth and Earl of Buccleuch, are well known: He was the illegitimate child of the future King Charles II by Lucy Walter. Charles, who was in exile after the overthrow of the British Monarchy in 1649, had no ability to help his son, who grew up in poverty with his mother. Charles eventually stole the baby back, shortly before Lucy died, and when the monarchy was restored and Charles became Charles II, Monmouth began a rapid climb. Soon after his return, the boy was married to a child bride, Anna Scott, Countess of Buccleuch, whose mother was determined not to let the family earldom fall into the wrong hands and so offered to wed her to James-no-last-name. Charles then created the title Duke of Monmouth for James, and Monmouth gradually accumulated honors and military expertise and fame over the next two decades. He also grew up to be handsome and very personable (although just as dissolute as his notoriously womanizing father, who was credited with seventeen bastards). He was very popular with the lower classes.

His popularity and his occasionally radical ideas wouldn't have mattered much, if Charles had had a legitimate child. But his wife was barren. And Britain did not allow illegitimate children to succeed. So Charles's heir would be his brother James (then Duke of York, later James II and VII). And... York was Catholic.

Remember, this is the late seventeenth century. Neither England nor Scotland wanted a Catholic monarch (though they didn't really agree on what sort of Protestant they did want). There were various attempts to exclude York from the succession, which Charles fended off by shutting down the parliaments involved. As this was happening, Monmouth the Golden Boy was becoming more and more associated with what would become the Whig party -- certainly with the anti-York party. So much so that he was actually forced into exile before Charles II died.

And Charles II died relatively young in 1685, and James II took the throne, and the surviving Whigs were horrified. To try to put someone -- anyone -- else on the throne, people started putting it about that Monmouth was legitimate, and hence Charles's heir. Monmouth was convinced to leave his safe exile (where he was living happily with a woman he deeply loved) and invade England. When he arrived, though, with little money and few weapons, he found it all but impossible to raise troops, and when his small army of peasants ran into the (smaller but much better) royalist army at the Battle of Sedgemoor, Monmouth was utterly defeated. Those of his troops who were not slain in the field were often killed afterward at the Bloody Assizes, or transported to the West Indies; Monmouth himself was taken about a week after the battle and executed. James II was utterly triumphant... for three years, until Monmouth's friend William of Orange invaded England on his own behalf and that of his wife, Mary the daughter of James II. James was defeated, William and Mary allowed the "Glorious Revolution" to modernize England, and Monmouth's allies, such as survived, were mostly pardoned.

Those are the facts. But what is the motivation? Was Monmouth truly an independent actor, or was he mostly led about by others? I know two recent biographies of Monmouth, this one and Anna Keay's The Last Royal Rebel: The Life and Death of James, Duke of Monmouth, which is much longer and more substantial. There is also David Chandler's Sedgemoor 1685: From Monmouth's Invasion to the Bloody Assizes, which covers only the very end of Monmouth's life, so it's weak on motivation but rich in detail.

Keay thinks Monmouth was his own man; Brennan thinks he was much more a puppet. Who is right? I would say that Keay makes the better case -- but that's because Keay makes the more substantial case. Keay's book is much longer, perhaps a little better written, and documented. It's hard to trust Brennan, because she never cites sources. And yet there is a sort of breezy efficiency about Brennan's book: She knows where she is heading, and she gets there, and you get the picture. There is no bogging down.

Unfortunately, there are reasons to doubt the accuracy of the book. For example, it says on p. 116 that the battle of Sedgemoor took place at "Westernzoyland." It didn't; it took place at "Westonzoyland." (No, I'm not making that name up! It's an actual place in southwest England, near the town of Bridgwater.) The index is pretty sparse, too. The whole thing feels like a bit of a rush job.

Conclusion: If you really want to know about Monmouth, or about Sedgemoor for that matter, you will need more than this book. It's too thin and too one-sided. On the other hand, it's a useful counter-argument to Keay. On the gripping hand, if you just want to know the rough history of an interesting figure in the crazy world of Restoration politics, and of the political situation that led to the Glorious Revolution, this might be just the book.… (more)

Many dozens of books have been written about Glorianna, Queen Elizabeth I of England. So what does this new entry bring to a much covered subject? It's short. Seriously, this book is a fantastic introduction to the famous queen for those who haven't read anything before and may be intimidated by large tomes that exhaustively cover her life.

The book is written almost like Cliff's Notes; it touches upon all the major events that shaped her, both before and after her rise to the throne: the death of Anne Boleyn, Thomas Seymour, the reigns of her siblings, her aversion to marriage and more. The book is an easy read, with enough detail to convey how these events affected QEI without becoming bogged down in minutia.

Overall, while there wasn't anything new here for me (having already read many books about QEI) I did enjoy this as a "recap" and feel it would be perfect for anyone just looking to learn a little about the famous queen.… (more)