After a long and protracted love affair with the Tudors, I'm finally advancing in history and have stopped in midst of the Stuarts. I've a few books on Charles I, and was wondering if anyone had any good book recommendations on any of the following: James I, Charles II, James II, Glorious Revolution-Jacobitism, and then of course, the English Civil War.
I dunno off the top of my head, but with respect to the Civil War, when I get home I can post the biblography/suggested reading list for Unhappy King Charles! by GMT. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:53:11 AM
with respect to the Civil War, when I get home I can post the biblography/suggested reading list for Unhappy King Charles! by GMT. :bowler:
You fail at the Internet.
Quote from: Bibliography for Unhappy King CharlesThe King's War: C.V. Wedgwood.
All The King's Armies: Stuart Reid
Leaders of The English Civil War: Toynbee and Ridsdill-Smith
1066 and all that: Sellars and Yeatman
Atlas of the Civil War: P.R. Newman
The Irish and British Wars 1637-1654: James Scott Wheeler
The Civil Wars of England: John Kenyon
The Royalist War Effort 1642-1646: Ronald Hutton
It's more authentic if I type it in from an actual paper copy I have at home. :mad:
Thanks. I'm currently reading Kenyon's Stuart England which is a nice overview but by its nature and purpose, skimps on detail.
I'd fail at my mild scotophilia if I didn't point out that the Stuarts had a long history well prior to James I / VI. :scots:
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2009, 12:11:27 PM
I'd fail at my mild scotophilia if I didn't point out that the Stuarts had a long history well prior to James I / VI. :scots:
I should have put in the addendum that I don't care about that (well anything pre-Mary Stuart).
edit: Fixed title. Also, I doubt I'll be buying any of those recommended books as they all look on the expensive side...
The Stuarts are, without a doubt, the most miserable failures as Kings of England post-1066. They are incredibly fascinating though. The whole history of the English Monarchy from the ascension of Henry IV in 1399 until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 is high drama and endlessly entertaining.
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2009, 12:11:27 PM
I'd fail at my mild scotophilia if I didn't point out that the Stuarts had a long history well prior to James I / VI. :scots:
Prior to becoming married to England Scotland was an unimportant backwater. Something about being joined to England suddenly turned the Scots into geniuses.
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2009, 12:16:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2009, 12:11:27 PM
I'd fail at my mild scotophilia if I didn't point out that the Stuarts had a long history well prior to James I / VI. :scots:
I should have put in the addendum that I don't care about that (well anything pre-Mary Stuart).
edit: Fixed title. Also, I doubt I'll be buying any of those recommended books as they all look on the expensive side...
Mary Stuart: revenge through breeding. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 12:17:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2009, 12:11:27 PM
I'd fail at my mild scotophilia if I didn't point out that the Stuarts had a long history well prior to James I / VI. :scots:
Prior to becoming married to England Scotland was an unimportant backwater. Something about being joined to England suddenly turned the Scots into geniuses.
I may be a mild scotophile (man thats awfully close to something else I don't want to be associated with), I am a huge anglophile so I won't doubt that England + Scotland are two great tastes that taste great together. :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 12:20:43 PM
Mary Stuart: revenge through breeding. :lol:
:lol: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2009, 12:21:29 PMI may be a mild scotophile (man thats awfully close to something else I don't want to be associated with), I am a huge anglophile so I won't doubt that England + Scotland are two great tastes that taste great together. :)
It truly was a remarkable partnership. I have no idea why it worked so well considering how much the Scots and English had disliked each other for so long prior to the Union. Heck even the Union itself was based on England taking advantage of Scottish poverty and misfortune.
I certainly have no idea why a series of intellectual giants seem to have been present in Scotland shortly thereafter.
So has anyone read any books? :whistle: :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 12:25:54 PM
I have no idea why it worked so well considering how much the Scots and English had disliked each other for so long prior to the Union. Heck even the Union itself was based on England taking advantage of Scottish poverty and misfortune.
Scotland: We fail at colonization. :scots:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2009, 12:39:53 PM
Scotland: We fail at colonization. :scots:
On the other hand, if you want to conquer India... :yeah:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2009, 12:39:53 PMScotland: We fail at colonization. :scots:
History shows the Scots are actually among the greatest colonizers and conquerers ever...at least they were once they joined up with England.
Yeah, I wondered about MIM's statement as well.
All of the great fur traders and explorers in Canada were Scottish.
Only under British command. :contract:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2009, 01:10:14 PM
Only under British command. :contract:
Under British flag, but Scottish command. :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 12:17:47 PMPrior to becoming married to England Scotland was an unimportant backwater. Something about being joined to England suddenly turned the Scots into geniuses.
The Stuarts were, actually a remarkably successful and able dynasty until the moved into England. Some Scottish Stuart kings are almost model Renaissance princes.
I really enjoyed Austin Woolrych's 'Britain in Revolution: 1625-60'. I haven't read but will get John Adamson's 'The Noble Revolt' which focuses, I believe entirely, on 1640-2. It's got good reviews.
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2009, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2009, 01:10:14 PM
Only under British command. :contract:
Under British flag, but Scottish command. :contract:
Meh. Same thing. I was talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2009, 01:14:14 PM
Meh. Same thing. I was talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
Ah yes....they certainly did fail at colonization prior to 1700.
That was my point about the Act of Union seemingly turning the Scots in geniuses who could not lose.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 01:12:04 PM
I really enjoyed Austin Woolrych's 'Britain in Revolution: 1625-60'.
That tome sounds like a beast! :o
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2009, 12:39:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 12:25:54 PM
I have no idea why it worked so well considering how much the Scots and English had disliked each other for so long prior to the Union. Heck even the Union itself was based on England taking advantage of Scottish poverty and misfortune.
Scotland: We fail at colonization. :scots:
well, independent colonization. like sweden and courland. they failed too.
yet, ever been to Canada? this country was run by Scots for about a century and a half. look at India, Burma, elsewhere. the Scots arguably ran the British (not English) Empire.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 13, 2009, 02:23:13 PM
well, independent colonization. like sweden and courland. they failed too.
yet, ever been to Canada? this country was run by Scots for about a century and a half. look at India, Burma, elsewhere. the Scots arguably ran the British (not English) Empire.
:yes:
The British Empire was truly a British enterprise not an English one.
The Welsh ran the dung heaps, that being all they could do.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 01:15:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2009, 01:14:14 PM
Meh. Same thing. I was talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
Ah yes....they certainly did fail at colonization prior to 1700.
That was my point about the Act of Union seemingly turning the Scots in geniuses who could not lose.
in plant breeding, they call a similar phenomena "hybrid vigour."
to maintain the vigour over several generations, you generally have to crossbreed the parent stock back in. this extended biological metaphor has interesting implications for scot's nationalism.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 13, 2009, 02:44:08 PM
The Welsh ran the dung heaps, that being all they could do.
Taffy joined the army and got to shoot at teh Fuzzies. he was happy.
@sask
That's why Tiger Woods is so good at golf :smarty:
Just wait for the HBO series once they have done Henry VII and Bloody Mary with the Tudor's
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2009, 03:48:56 PM
Just wait for the HBO series once they have done Henry VII and Bloody Mary with the Tudor's
<_<
Here's what I have currently:
QuoteRichard Cust Charles I: A Political Life
Christopher Hibbert Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason
Maureen Waller Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown
Leanda de Lisle After Elizabeth: The Rise of James of Scotland and the Struggle for the Throne of England
J.P. Kenyon Stuart England
Frank McLynn The Jacobites
I kinda want this :lol: :
http://www.amazon.com/Jacobites-Scothe-Books-Childrens-Activity-Book/dp/0114952507
"The Jacobites (Scothe Books-Children's Activity Book Series)"
/Do any good biographies of James I exist? I know so little of this famous homosexual. :weep:
English history makes Habsy :zzz very sleepy.
I am presently reading Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichroeder & the Building of the German Empire, by Fritz Stern. It is super yum-yum. :mmm:
Thanks for not helping. :P
You deleted the post, Valms, but I think it falls under the one drop rule...although in this case, the one drop doesn't refer to blood. :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2009, 04:49:32 PM
You deleted the post, Valms, but I think it falls under the one drop rule...although in this case, the one drop doesn't refer to blood. :ph34r:
I decided not to open up that particular can of worms :P
But understood -_-
I was saying that you can consider James a Homo only if you only give credence to his male affairs and completely ignore his female ones and his wife.
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2009, 04:46:56 PM
Thanks for not helping. :P
Well the Stuarts are such a vile, brutish, disgusting clan.
Poor Marie d'Guise having to wed one. :cry:
Quote from: Habsburg on April 13, 2009, 05:28:37 PM
Well the Stuarts are such a vile, brutish, disgusting clan.
Poor Marie d'Guise having to wed one. :cry:
The Guise. :x
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2009, 05:34:29 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on April 13, 2009, 05:28:37 PM
Well the Stuarts are such a vile, brutish, disgusting clan.
Poor Marie d'Guise having to wed one. :cry:
The Guise. :x
Teh Guise >>>>>>>>>> Stuarts
:bleeding:
Quote from: Habsburg on April 13, 2009, 06:20:03 PM
Teh Guise >>>>>>>>>> Stuarts
:bleeding:
Puhleeze. The very existence of Mary Stuart gives the lie to that statement. Mary, what a wonderful dramatic. :wub:
All the Guise managed to do was fuck over France when she was already suffering under the Valois. <_<
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2009, 06:22:16 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on April 13, 2009, 06:20:03 PM
Teh Guise >>>>>>>>>> Stuarts
:bleeding:
Puhleeze. The very existence of Mary Stuart gives the lie to that statement. Mary, what a wonderful dramatic. :wub:
All the Guise managed to do was ---- over France when she was already suffering under the Valois. <_<
You don't think that unstable, simple minded Mary Stuart is like, neat-o, do you? :bleeding:
Quote from: Habsburg on April 13, 2009, 06:41:51 PM
You don't think that unstable, simple minded Mary Stuart is like, neat-o, do you? :bleeding:
Of course I do. I don't think Hollywood could dream up such a dramatic and flawed character. It wouldn't seem plausible. ^_^
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 04:55:12 PMI was saying that you can consider James a Homo only if you only give credence to his male affairs and completely ignore his female ones and his wife.
Well, there's also the direct secret passage between Villiers bedroom and James's in James's favourite country houses. Indeed that house was expanded because James gave an order unique, in English history, that it's owner 'expand it for the more commodious enjoyment of the King'. The passage between their chambers was added during that expansion.
Also James's rumours are very old . He was called Queen James, there was 17th century verse, contemporary to James, about him fucking Villiers and the first historical accusation came from Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century.
But it's wrong to talk of gays when you're talking about pre 20th century figures because they didn't exist. But, as far as sodomites go, James I is one of the more likely candidates.
The Stuart Age by a chap called Barry Coward is a very good read for the period 1603-1714. Apart from anything else Coward details the areas of controversy and the different schools of thought on these matters, the bibliography is also very good, enabling you to put together a very good reading list for your deeper investigations.
There is no first-rate biography of James I that I'm aware of :(
I spent a while looking for one a while back and got absolutely nowhere.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 08:44:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 04:55:12 PMI was saying that you can consider James a Homo only if you only give credence to his male affairs and completely ignore his female ones and his wife.
Well, there's also the direct secret passage between Villiers bedroom and James's in James's favourite country houses. Indeed that house was expanded because James gave an order unique, in English history, that it's owner 'expand it for the more commodious enjoyment of the King'. The passage between their chambers was added during that expansion.
Also James's rumours are very old . He was called Queen James, there was 17th century verse, contemporary to James, about him fucking Villiers and the first historical accusation came from Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century.
But it's wrong to talk of gays when you're talking about pre 20th century figures because they didn't exist. But, as far as sodomites go, James I is one of the more likely candidates.
I am well aware of all of that...but James did have a ton of Children with his wife and had at least one affair with a woman. His sexuality is just more complex than simply being gay or straight. He is the Buddha Rhubarb of Kings.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 14, 2009, 12:56:50 AM
There is no first-rate biography of James I that I'm aware of :(
That is bizarre as he is one of the most important kings in British history. How odd.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 14, 2009, 12:56:50 AM
The Stuart Age by a chap called Barry Coward is a very good read for the period 1603-1714. Apart from anything else Coward details the areas of controversy and the different schools of thought on these matters, the bibliography is also very good, enabling you to put together a very good reading list for your deeper investigations.
Thanks. :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 14, 2009, 12:56:50 AMThere is no first-rate biography of James I that I'm aware of :(
I spent a while looking for one a while back and got absolutely nowhere.
That sucks.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2009, 07:35:39 AM
I am well aware of all of that...but James did have a ton of Children with his wife and had at least one affair with a woman. His sexuality is just more complex than simply being gay or straight. He is the Buddha Rhubarb of Kings.
He was a monarch. The most important thing any monarch does is to produce an heir. But, as I say, we don't and can't know anything about the sexuality of people in the past because homosexuality is a recent invention. What we can do is say whether there was gossip of sodomy around them (eg. James, Byron) or whether they suggest at a very strong sexual desire towards other men (eg. Shakespeare, Tennyson). So I think Shakespeare, for example, shows strong hints of bisexuality while I think it can be said with reasonable confidence that James was a sodomite.
QuoteThat is bizarre as he is one of the most important kings in British history. How odd.
I think he's drowned out. He's caught between the Elizabethan 'golden age' and England's revolution. For those reasons an interesting but unspectacular king is likely to just get skipped over.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2009, 11:06:28 AM
He was a monarch. The most important thing any monarch does is to produce an heir. But, as I say, we don't and can't know anything about the sexuality of people in the past because homosexuality is a recent invention. What we can do is say whether there was gossip of sodomy around them (eg. James, Byron) or whether they suggest at a very strong sexual desire towards other men (eg. Shakespeare, Tennyson). So I think Shakespeare, for example, shows strong hints of bisexuality while I think it can be said with reasonable confidence that James was a sodomite.
Yes to produce an heir but he was reported to be deeply in love with his wife at first before they started to drift apart and he started sleeping with Anne Murray. I mean why did he go get a female mistress if he was solely a Sodomite? Just to keep up appearances?
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2009, 04:03:09 PM
QuoteRichard Cust Charles I: A Political Life
Christopher Hibbert Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason
So far the top one (realized I'd put the wrong title yesterday) is far superior. Goes into a lot of depth about all the events during Charles's rule. The latter has 10 pages devoted to 1629-1640. <_< Its focus seems to be heavily on pre-kingship years.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2009, 11:18:08 AM
Yes to produce an heir but he was reported to be deeply in love with his wife at first before they started to drift apart and he started sleeping with Anne Murray. I mean why did he go get a female mistress if he was solely a Sodomite? Just to keep up appearances?
I've never said he was solely a sodomite. I've just said he was a sodomite :mellow:
Things are getting tricky here, if Valmy accuses Sheilbh of saying that King James "posed as a somdomite" who knows where the squabbles will end :(
In the end. :perv:
For Habs, I integrated Mary Stuart into a new password they made me make for work. :hug:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2009, 11:42:13 AMI've never said he was solely a sodomite. I've just said he was a sodomite :mellow:
Oh...well yes that is almost certainly true. -_-
Also, who are the craytastics who wrote the wikipedia article on the english civil war? Between it and the individual pages for each of the wars, that's a tome. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2009, 01:04:36 PM
Yeah, I wondered about MIM's statement as well.
All of the great fur traders and explorers in Canada were Scottish.
No. They were French. :Canuck:
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 14, 2009, 06:14:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2009, 01:04:36 PM
Yeah, I wondered about MIM's statement as well.
All of the great fur traders and explorers in Canada were Scottish.
No. They were French. :Canuck:
You are - mistaken. -_-
How so ? :Canuck:
So after my Stuart purchasing party ended, here's what I've netted out with:
Richard Cust Charles I: A Political Life
Christopher Hibbert Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason
Maureen Waller Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown
Leanda de Lisle After Elizabeth: The Rise of James of Scotland and the Struggle for the Throne of England
J.P. Kenyon Stuart England
Frank McLynn The Jacobites
John Miller The Stuarts
John Miller Bourbon and Stuart
Michael Braddick God's Fury, England's Fire: A New History of the English Civil Wars
Alan Stewart The Cradle King: The Life of James VI and I, the First Monarch of a United Great Britain
If we include books on Mary Stuart (about 3), I now have more books on the Stuarts than the Tudors. :Embarrass: :weep: