The white king Charles I : traitor, murderer, martyr

Granted access to closed archives at Belvoir Castle, de Lisle (The Sisters Who Would Be Queen) paints a sympathetic portrait of Charles I (1600-49), who was executed by antiroyalist forces. The English Civil War was a political contest over the proper balance of power between the king and Parliament, and the nature of the Church of England itself. The author skillfully places Charles's story within the context of the religious, international, and domestic political rivalries of the 17th century. Readers will find relevance in the saga of Charles and his family relationships. Misogyny, religious prejudice, and prurient propaganda were used against his queen, French Catholic Henrietta-Marie, who emerges as a warrior in her own right; an effective diplomat for the king's cause. Another notable is the queen's friend Lucy Hay, Countess of Carlisle, a descendant of Anne Boleyn. This fascinating look at a society in turmoil and the resilient, principled leader who tried to remain true to his religious and dynastic responsibilities will leave readers to determine for themselves the meaning of "The White King," a sobriquet used by both enemies and friends of Charles. VERDICT An engrossing read for fans of British biography and history.-Marie M. Mullaney, Caldwell Coll., NJ © Copyright 2017. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Biography of an English king whose "life and reign add up to far more than the sum of his mistakes."Charles I (1600-1649) has always received bad press as the villain of "the triumph of virtuous, warty-faced politicians and soldiers over a king who is weak, stupid and backward lookinga mere speed bump on the high road to liberal democracy." Reading this description on the first page, one may suspect that the author disagrees. Sure enough, veteran British historian de Lisle (Tudor: Passion. Manipulation. Murder. The Story of England's Most Notorious Royal Family, 2013) delivers a more generous portrait. Charles was the son of James I and mostly a chip off the old block: a High Church Anglican who believed in the divine right of kings and clerical authority, which guaranteed trouble with the austere, Protestant Calvinists who were gaining power. Charles ruled without Parliament from 1629 to 1640, but lack of money and war with Scotland forced his hand. Fiercely anti-Royalist, the legislature passed a torrent of laws limiting his authority and expanding its own while persecuting his advisers. Despite plenty of Royalist support, Charles lacked his opponents' political acumen and ruthlessness, even after raising his standard in 1642. In 1647, after a bloody civil war, he found himself a prisoner of Parliament, the members of which wanted a negotiated settlement that might have happened if extremists under Oliver Cromwell hadn't expelled that majority in 1649, leaving those willing to condemn the king. De Lisle's parliamentarians are an irascible group, resembling not so much freedom fighters as the tea party; on the other hand, the author's Charles often seems the voice of reason. Recent elections in Britain and the United States have produced surprisingly dysfunctional governments. De Lisle's fine, revisionist view of Charles may arouse nostalgia for a time when national leaders, elected or not, looked out for the nonzealous majority. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.