Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.48 AVERAGE
3.48 AVERAGE
cremullins's review
2.0
A Tory History of England
A strangely conservative history of England, one infatuated with Englishness and seemingly unembarrassed by, or at least neutral on, the subject of the British Empire. At the outset, Jenkins says he will restrict his scope to "England" as it is often conflated with Britain as a whole, but throughout the book conflates Englishness with Britishness.
It is also riddled with glaring inaccuracies, some of which I had to highlight. One especially egregious howler states that the word "cabal" - derived from a mediaeval antisemitic term referring to the Jewish mystical tradition of Kabbalah - actually derives from "Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale". Worse: The version I read is a second edition, which means Jenkins and his editors had seven years to correct his mistakes, and they didn't.
This makes for a decent enough introduction to English history, I suppose, narrating first the history of the monarchy and then the history of Parliament. However, this leaning heavily on the history of England as a state, rather than the English as a people, leaves the book feeling quite austere and remote.
The narrative style is quite breezy and pleasant, but I come away from it feeling like I am being lectured by an elder patriotic Englishman whom I do not have the heart to correct on his misconceptions of this nation's apparent triumphs.
I would recommend supplementing this book with more detailed (and better-researched) histories of specific time periods in British history, particularly those with a more critical view of the English state.
For me, this was a frustrating read.
A strangely conservative history of England, one infatuated with Englishness and seemingly unembarrassed by, or at least neutral on, the subject of the British Empire. At the outset, Jenkins says he will restrict his scope to "England" as it is often conflated with Britain as a whole, but throughout the book conflates Englishness with Britishness.
It is also riddled with glaring inaccuracies, some of which I had to highlight. One especially egregious howler states that the word "cabal" - derived from a mediaeval antisemitic term referring to the Jewish mystical tradition of Kabbalah - actually derives from "Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale". Worse: The version I read is a second edition, which means Jenkins and his editors had seven years to correct his mistakes, and they didn't.
This makes for a decent enough introduction to English history, I suppose, narrating first the history of the monarchy and then the history of Parliament. However, this leaning heavily on the history of England as a state, rather than the English as a people, leaves the book feeling quite austere and remote.
The narrative style is quite breezy and pleasant, but I come away from it feeling like I am being lectured by an elder patriotic Englishman whom I do not have the heart to correct on his misconceptions of this nation's apparent triumphs.
I would recommend supplementing this book with more detailed (and better-researched) histories of specific time periods in British history, particularly those with a more critical view of the English state.
For me, this was a frustrating read.
martinr71's review against another edition
4.0
Great. Easy to read and broken down into nice short chapters. I learnt so much about my own country. I'd definitely recommend it.
dimitri0s's review against another edition
Plus: Very condensed, will help me understand books that I will read later on English history. Gives perspective.
Minus: Loves Parliament as an institution too much. Has this approach on writing English history that for the imperial years mentions only on what was happening only in England leaving gaps, example: discusses that in the 1950s troops needed to suppress two uprisings, in I think Kenya and Cyprus, but nowhere mentions how and why say Cyprus became part of the empire in the first place.
Minus: Loves Parliament as an institution too much. Has this approach on writing English history that for the imperial years mentions only on what was happening only in England leaving gaps, example: discusses that in the 1950s troops needed to suppress two uprisings, in I think Kenya and Cyprus, but nowhere mentions how and why say Cyprus became part of the empire in the first place.
lyndamr's review against another edition
4.0
Very well written book covering all of English history from the Romans to 2011. Having to cover so much scope means that the author didn't get to do in depth on some things that might have been pet interests to me, but it gave a great understanding of how this nation came to be. I loved those "aha" moments when something I'd seen or a place I'd walked by was suddenly brought into context by reading it's place in history or how it came to be. An example would be how the three feathers came to be on the crest of the Prince of Wales, something we'd see on the side of a truck delivering goods for a company that had a royal warrant from the Queen and the Prince of Wales.
chrisdavis's review against another edition
4.0
I sometimes suspect that writing a short history of England is more challenging than writing a complete 10 volume account. Any attempt to squeeze some 1500 years of history as gorgeously complex as that of England's is going to have to leave a lot out. This of course invites people to criticize the author for leaving out their favorite bit. And of course I am going to do exactly that later on.
First lets look at what this book does well. It is lovely to look at and includes some great pictures. Since this book is designed to look good on a shelf or coffee table that is important. The book is well subdivided into chapters and the author does a good job of discussing wider themes throughout the book. The switch from focusing on monarchs to Prime Ministers was perhaps a little too quick, but otherwise it was well done. Perhaps this seems like faint praise, but the book is well written and an enjoyable read for what it is, but I do have some problems with it that stop me recommending it as the perfect short history of England.
When writing a short history of this kind, one can imagine that the book starts out too long and ends up being savagely edited by the author and/or publisher. This has clearly happened here. Sometimes names of people and places were mentioned with no introduction and some of the transitions were poor. Parts of the book have far to many names introduced in too short a space and it just becomes a mess and hard to follow. Other times I would be left intrigued and wanting to know more. For example, when discussing Ann Bolin (Henry VIII second wife) the book says that her infidelity was discovered after an elaborate conspiracy was hatched, but it never says was that conspiracy was! Why introduce it in such a maner only to leave it out? It is probably on the editing floor somewhere.
Some sections are notably brief and leave out things that the average person reading this book will want to know more about. The book glosses over the supposed murder of the Two Princes by Richard III. Whatever the historical value and accuracy of that story, people want to know about it. And as with many of these books, way too much time is devoted to modern events. I admit there are far more sources to draw on for this stuff, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion. I don't think that Gordon Brown will be featuring in a history book written 1000 years from now. The author also puts the 2010 coalition government in a list of the 100 most significant events in English history. Really? Other omissions include a tendency to mention Ireland in passing yet offer no context nor explanation for the creation of the Irish Republic. If you are going to include Ireland in a book covering English history (and I would argue that you should) then give a proper explanation.
So overall, the book would have been a lot better had it been 500 pages and not 350. 500 is still short in my view and would have allowed the author to include additional material. It is a good book, and if you need a VERY short history of England this will suit you. Others will need to keep looking or bite the bullet and get stuck into something more comprehensive. Personally, I am going to finally read Simon Schama's three part history of England.
7/10
First lets look at what this book does well. It is lovely to look at and includes some great pictures. Since this book is designed to look good on a shelf or coffee table that is important. The book is well subdivided into chapters and the author does a good job of discussing wider themes throughout the book. The switch from focusing on monarchs to Prime Ministers was perhaps a little too quick, but otherwise it was well done. Perhaps this seems like faint praise, but the book is well written and an enjoyable read for what it is, but I do have some problems with it that stop me recommending it as the perfect short history of England.
When writing a short history of this kind, one can imagine that the book starts out too long and ends up being savagely edited by the author and/or publisher. This has clearly happened here. Sometimes names of people and places were mentioned with no introduction and some of the transitions were poor. Parts of the book have far to many names introduced in too short a space and it just becomes a mess and hard to follow. Other times I would be left intrigued and wanting to know more. For example, when discussing Ann Bolin (Henry VIII second wife) the book says that her infidelity was discovered after an elaborate conspiracy was hatched, but it never says was that conspiracy was! Why introduce it in such a maner only to leave it out? It is probably on the editing floor somewhere.
Some sections are notably brief and leave out things that the average person reading this book will want to know more about. The book glosses over the supposed murder of the Two Princes by Richard III. Whatever the historical value and accuracy of that story, people want to know about it. And as with many of these books, way too much time is devoted to modern events. I admit there are far more sources to draw on for this stuff, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion. I don't think that Gordon Brown will be featuring in a history book written 1000 years from now. The author also puts the 2010 coalition government in a list of the 100 most significant events in English history. Really? Other omissions include a tendency to mention Ireland in passing yet offer no context nor explanation for the creation of the Irish Republic. If you are going to include Ireland in a book covering English history (and I would argue that you should) then give a proper explanation.
So overall, the book would have been a lot better had it been 500 pages and not 350. 500 is still short in my view and would have allowed the author to include additional material. It is a good book, and if you need a VERY short history of England this will suit you. Others will need to keep looking or bite the bullet and get stuck into something more comprehensive. Personally, I am going to finally read Simon Schama's three part history of England.
7/10
mindtravelagent's review against another edition
4.0
Nice, easy-to-read, surprisingly thorough overview of English history. Given that history is barely taught in our schools anymore this offers a big picture introduction.
joefizh's review against another edition
5.0
Definitely recommend, some parts of history more familiar to us, like Tudors, Stuarts, but found all the Henrys fascinating! Published before Brexit, which I think would have given a different tone to the end of the book!