joshua_c's review against another edition
3.5
A competent and comprehensive breakdown of the actions and outcomes of the men responsible for the execution of Charles I at the conclusion of the English Civil War. Though somewhat lacking flair, Killers of the King provides a clear and accessible account of one of the most outrageous episodes of English Early Modern History and would be perfectly satisfactory for anyone hoping to learn more about the event and the men responsible for it.
anneliesb's review against another edition
3.0
Definitely more readable than a dry history textbook, but the footnotes and aim at historical accuracy take away from the smooth reading experience of a historical novel. If you're interested in the period, this is a very accessible book. But the nature of the topic does reduce it to count-down list, x regicides dead, y to go. Midway it gets a bit tedious; regicide 24/59 has his genitals chopped of and disembowled, next, regicide 25/59 has his genitals chopped and is disembowled, regicide 26/59....you get the picture.
It only picks up in the last +/- 50 pages. The last remaining 'villains' have escaped to America and the hunt for them is quite adventurous and exciting.
I guess if history had been different this would be a different book. But hey, you cannot blame the author for the lack of variety in death sentences for a whole flock of regicides.
It only picks up in the last +/- 50 pages. The last remaining 'villains' have escaped to America and the hunt for them is quite adventurous and exciting.
I guess if history had been different this would be a different book. But hey, you cannot blame the author for the lack of variety in death sentences for a whole flock of regicides.
gellie3097's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting read enjoyed hearing about the capture and man hunt for the various regicides. It is a heavily detailed and comprehensive history but that makes it a difficult book to get through, with the first 40% of the book covering the trial and execution being the most tedious to get through.
Historical 4
Historical 4
frostbitsky's review
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
3.0
I didn't know that Princess Diana's brother wrote history books. I got this from a 2 books for 1 credit from Audible.
I never really understood how Parliament managed to execute a king and the details of his sham of a trial sheds light on that. I also knew nothing of the aftermath when his son, Charles II, took the throne back.
I did like learning a lot of history facts. It's really well researched and I feel like I'll be able to answer more Jeopardy! clues.
I had never heard of The Fifth Monarchists before. (A radical group of Puritans, they took their name from a prophecy in the Old Testament that said there had been four great empires (Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman) and a fifth would be formed by the return of Christ in the Second Coming.) And Thomas Harrison was a nut case! He punched his executioner!
I also never knew John Milton wrote propaganda for the Oliver Cromwell regime.
I couldn't remember everyone's names and sometimes my mind would wander because there were just so many Regicide men being hunted down. But there are so many little details for history buffs to absorb. Mainly what I always learn from history books is that times change, people don't.
3 out of 5 Axes.
johnnygamble's review against another edition
2.0
don't know why I expected a more interesting narrative. A snore.
jdscott50's review against another edition
3.0
Charles Spencer’s work focuses on the Parliamentary characters that would precipitate the English Civil War and execute King Charles I. Far before the French Revolution’s regicide and the years of the Terror, it sent shockwaves through Europe and would have lasting effects in Europe and in what would become the United States.
A direct result of religious differences and the past abuses of the Stuart line, James I and Charles I would consistently defy Parliament. In many cases, they would enact orders without a vote, exceeding the power of the king. When Scotland invades England, Parliament refuses to raise funds for an army, thus becoming the catalyst for the crisis. This book isn’t about the English Civil War or the rule of the Rump Parliament. It is the story of those who would challenge and kill their king and later face the consequences of their actions.
Spencer spells out the initial trial of the king, a historical event via courtroom drama. Much of the trial resembles the impeachment trials of a president. In particular, when Charles I states that “…the people are mind by inheritance…” it reminded me of Nixon’s, “If the president does it, it is not illegal.” With this distinction, Spencer is able to flesh out the justification for the crimes of the king. This event along with many in the coming years would continually weaken the role of the royals to figureheads. However, just 12 years later, Oliver Cromwell dies and having not fully purged the royalists, they get their revenge on these regicides. A reversal of fortunes, these men are then tried and sentenced to gruesome deaths. Many escape, going to the Americas and strengthening the colonies established from Plymouth Rock. It’s a fascinating examination of the consequences of historical actions and the how the colonization of the Americas stem from this conflict.
A direct result of religious differences and the past abuses of the Stuart line, James I and Charles I would consistently defy Parliament. In many cases, they would enact orders without a vote, exceeding the power of the king. When Scotland invades England, Parliament refuses to raise funds for an army, thus becoming the catalyst for the crisis. This book isn’t about the English Civil War or the rule of the Rump Parliament. It is the story of those who would challenge and kill their king and later face the consequences of their actions.
Spencer spells out the initial trial of the king, a historical event via courtroom drama. Much of the trial resembles the impeachment trials of a president. In particular, when Charles I states that “…the people are mind by inheritance…” it reminded me of Nixon’s, “If the president does it, it is not illegal.” With this distinction, Spencer is able to flesh out the justification for the crimes of the king. This event along with many in the coming years would continually weaken the role of the royals to figureheads. However, just 12 years later, Oliver Cromwell dies and having not fully purged the royalists, they get their revenge on these regicides. A reversal of fortunes, these men are then tried and sentenced to gruesome deaths. Many escape, going to the Americas and strengthening the colonies established from Plymouth Rock. It’s a fascinating examination of the consequences of historical actions and the how the colonization of the Americas stem from this conflict.
kikiandarrowsfishshelf's review against another edition
3.0
Disclaimer: ARC via Netgalley.
To change any portrait of Charles I of England to a saint’s image, simply add a halo. From the removal of centuries it is impossible for anyone in know to separate that portrait from the tragic ending. Charles I always seems about to weep or shake his head in disappointment whereas any portrait of his eldest son, Charles II, always seems about to knock some women over and tup her.
Killers of the King isn’t about Charles I or II, though both men hover over the narrative and take over in parts. Regardless, the book isn’t a hagiography. It is, as the title indicates, about the fate of the men who signed Charles I’ s death warrant, who arranged for his head to leave his body. The later Romans who turned a man into a de facto saint.
Of course, it isn’t quite about the men who killed the king or the men who tried to save the nation, depending upon whose side you are on. It’s about the hunt of them after the executions of Charles, a hunt that starts before the Restoration and continues long after.
While Spencer does seem to be more of a Royalist than a Roundhead, often the Roundheads are dealt with in a sympathetic matter, the cost that they paid, not so much in terms of blood but in connection, or lack thereof, to their families as some of the men are forced to become what were then, world travelers.
In America it seems that we look at the English Civil War in one (or a combination) of three ways: (1) A war that in some way lay the foundation for the American Revolution, (2) something those crazy Brits did that means nothing to else or (3) what are you talking about. Yet, Spencer shows that there is a connection that those outside of New England (and perhaps even there) have forgotten for some of the Regicides traveled to America, and some of the history about this event, in particular a story about a cow herd, show that the Revolutionary spirit was alive and well before the American Revolution, and in fact, indicate that Jefferson’s charges in the Declaration go back further than most people are aware.
There is also a connection to more modern concerns because the hunt for the Regicides went beyond the borders of England, in particular, to the Netherlands and that echoes those concerns we have today about jurisdiction and extradition. The case described in this book, reminds one of the capture of Eichmann by Israel.
Spencer’s style isn’t the best. Other writers, Ackroyd and Starkey for instance, have a far more conversational style. Spencer’s style borders on that of a lecture, but an entertaining one that doesn’t ignore the more interesting, if slightly less important, aspects of the story. Considering that I wasn’t fully aware of Spencer being that Spencer until after I started reading the book, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised at how good the writing was.
Highly recommend for those interested in British History.
To change any portrait of Charles I of England to a saint’s image, simply add a halo. From the removal of centuries it is impossible for anyone in know to separate that portrait from the tragic ending. Charles I always seems about to weep or shake his head in disappointment whereas any portrait of his eldest son, Charles II, always seems about to knock some women over and tup her.
Killers of the King isn’t about Charles I or II, though both men hover over the narrative and take over in parts. Regardless, the book isn’t a hagiography. It is, as the title indicates, about the fate of the men who signed Charles I’ s death warrant, who arranged for his head to leave his body. The later Romans who turned a man into a de facto saint.
Of course, it isn’t quite about the men who killed the king or the men who tried to save the nation, depending upon whose side you are on. It’s about the hunt of them after the executions of Charles, a hunt that starts before the Restoration and continues long after.
While Spencer does seem to be more of a Royalist than a Roundhead, often the Roundheads are dealt with in a sympathetic matter, the cost that they paid, not so much in terms of blood but in connection, or lack thereof, to their families as some of the men are forced to become what were then, world travelers.
In America it seems that we look at the English Civil War in one (or a combination) of three ways: (1) A war that in some way lay the foundation for the American Revolution, (2) something those crazy Brits did that means nothing to else or (3) what are you talking about. Yet, Spencer shows that there is a connection that those outside of New England (and perhaps even there) have forgotten for some of the Regicides traveled to America, and some of the history about this event, in particular a story about a cow herd, show that the Revolutionary spirit was alive and well before the American Revolution, and in fact, indicate that Jefferson’s charges in the Declaration go back further than most people are aware.
There is also a connection to more modern concerns because the hunt for the Regicides went beyond the borders of England, in particular, to the Netherlands and that echoes those concerns we have today about jurisdiction and extradition. The case described in this book, reminds one of the capture of Eichmann by Israel.
Spencer’s style isn’t the best. Other writers, Ackroyd and Starkey for instance, have a far more conversational style. Spencer’s style borders on that of a lecture, but an entertaining one that doesn’t ignore the more interesting, if slightly less important, aspects of the story. Considering that I wasn’t fully aware of Spencer being that Spencer until after I started reading the book, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised at how good the writing was.
Highly recommend for those interested in British History.
stephend81d5's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.25
interesting detailed book looking at the lead up to Charles I beheading at Whitehall and the events after the restoration in 1660 and the gradual hunting down of the regicides.
cathreohorn's review against another edition
2.0
I don't think I've ever read a non-fiction historical book about modern history before. I had this on an impulse from Audible; I didn't know anything about Charles I, or the men who executed him. The writing style was quite dense and difficult to keep up with. I think I'd have got more out of it had I had a better knowledge of the history going in... but that isn't really ideal. Better suited to historians, perhaps.