DD is a soon-to-be grad student-just for age/difficulty ratings.

I know that Antonia Fraser wrote a bio of Cromwell, Lord Protector. Apparently a few years later she wrote a sequel 'Cromwell, Cheif of Men'. I haven't read them, but I have read several of her other books and have always found them well researched and interesting.

BTW, there was an earlier English Civil War, in the 12th century, between Empress Matilda and King Stephen. Lasted 20 years.

I owe as instigator of my interest in the English Civil War Daphne du Maurier's The King's General. DduM was quite meticulous in her research and she had a way of bringing characters and situations to life, even fitting in fictional characters that a reader can't readily distinguish from the real ones. Of course she was primarily interested in telling a good story so she fleshed out characters and speculated about certain things, but her conclusions are quite reasonable as long as they aren't taken as gospel. If your daughter, Cece, doesn't mind some romance (not the sappy kind), it is quite a wonderful way to jump into the history of the period, in my opinion.

I've had many fun years of trying to track down the historical bases for DduM's tale of the King's General in the West. The three that made the biggest impression on me have been:

The English Civil War: The Essential Readings edited by Peter Gaunt. This is great because you get several (twelve or so) different historians' perspectives in one volume.

The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution by Christopher Hill. Heh! I had no idea (but should have suspected) that the roots of many present-day British ways of thinking go this far back and, for that matter, we Americans can trace back a lot of our own to the same source.

The King's War, 1641-1647 by C.V. [Cecily (sp?) Veronica] Wedgwood and the follow-up, A Coffin for King Charles, which covers Cromwell's trial of King Charles and his eventual execution, is fascinating too.

Antonia Fraser's Cromwell disappointed me. However, her works are popular and accessible, and her study might be just the right spark for some readers.

cece, I don't know why popular English historians have never latched onto the Civil War as they have, say, the Tudors, Henry VIII and Elizabeth in particular.
Maybe it is because the politics is too convoluted or the characters of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell don't make for a good story . . . and the Puritans were a deadly dull and 'holier than thou' bunch!
I read not long ago that many of Cromwell's ideas of A Just War can be traced right down to present US military/Presidential thinking.

The Wedgwood mentioned by Frieda used to be the classic text-book of that period; it came out quite a while ago.

If your daughter still has the will to live after working her way through that lot and is interested in the 'follow-up' to the period, I recently read Ungrateful Daughters by Maureen Waller, which traces the lives of the daughters of James II. Over-long but well-written and can be skimmed through.

Cindy-I would have sent her right to Penman for a start on THAT one! She is looking for the Cromwell bunch. She's thoroughly (as Vee notes) done the other periods-much more interesting-but needs to fill in this gap.
Thanks to all for the suggestions, I will send them on.

Vee, you don't think the Ranters, Diggers, Levellers, Quakers and various other "movers" were interesting folk?...and the Puritans were a deadly dull and 'holier than thou' bunch!Maybe 'holier than thou', in some cases, but they were a lot less dull than they are represented in typical history lessons. They've received lots of bad, biased press, so to speak, over the years that several subsequent generations have swallowed without question. Besides, any group that can get hopped enough to agitate the establishment or leave family and hearth for the unknown, might be correctly labeled as "fevered" -- but not "dull," surely.

Yeah, perhaps, the politics of the period is too convoluted for many readers to grasp immediately, but Charles I and Cromwell are as intrinsically interesting as, say, any of the Georges, and possibly more so, depending on the way you think. The trouble is they are harder to romanticize than the Tudors or the Plantagenets and that's what a lot of readers want. French novelists have been more successful romanticizing the same period of the 17th century and a lot of the same people.

It does seem to be true that the English Civil War is underrepresented in popular writings. The Elizabethan period and the 12th, 14th, and 15th centuries seem to be the most overworked. A young academic might go against the prevailing flow, though, and get a better grasp of a less-crowded period. Who knows, she might embrace it enthusiastically, carve a niche, and in turn inspire somebody in the future to be interested in a complex and very important era.

The period of the English Civil War may be less represented in popular writings, but--at least when I was in academe--there was no shortage of scholars. The "Restoration" period that followed has long seemed less interesting--and less full--particularly in the English literature and history fields. I agree that Christopher Hill's works are worth reading. Lisa Jardine has written interestingly on several topics during that period too.

Another book, this time for 'pre-teens' (I hate that expression) I Coriander by Sally Gardner.
If you didn't know it was aimed at children I think you wouldn't realise it as there is no 'talking down' to the reader. Set in the 'Puritan' period.

I'm sure all those Ranters, Grinders, Movers and Shakers were very worthy folk but it is not difficult to see why there are no books about them (if there are I stand corrected).
Think of the diary of Samuel Pepys. Can you imagine that being written during those times under the Lord Protector?
"On this Sabbath, I Evermelancholy Grimsbody, got up, prayed for a hour, didn't wash, dressed in my my black suit. Ate a crust, read the Book of Deuteronomy to my Wife, Lacklustre Grimsbody, my children and servants then gave them a thorough beating for their lack of attention.
On the way to church tripped over the cat which I believe is in league with the Devil. Arranged with the Minister to have said cat hanged as a familiar of the old hag and witch, my Mother-in-Law."

Here is a link that might be useful: I Coriander

Vee-I think we should start a new thread-and group-write Grimsbody's Diary with a view to publication!

Ha! Well, Vee, as you said on another thread:If only a piece of writing could be found by one of the 'Common Men' telling his side of the story. "Got up, ate a crust of bread, toiled in the fields, came home, ate a bowl of soup . . . beat the wife . . . "But it looks as if any writings that can be found of the Puritan- and dissenter-type common men, we will probably find them dull unless we can poke fun at 'em. There are certainly surviving examples of Puritan writing because they valued literacy -- mainly to access and disseminate the Bible, true, but literacy has a way of morphing beyond its original intent.

Vee, have you read Elizabeth George Speare's The Witch of Blackbird Pond? Like I Coriander it is aimed at Young Adults/Adolescents but it does not talk down to that group, either. If you haven't read it, I posted an excerpt from Witch of Blackbird... in the Cry-Worthy thread if you would like to get a bit of its flavor. It is set in a slighter later period (1687-1688) than what we've been discussing here, but it's about Puritan attitudes in Connecticut. It remains one of my favorite books and I still reread it regularly.

Also, The Winthrop Woman by Anya Seton is another novel about the Puritans of England who settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It's quite an entertaining story.

Perhaps Americans find this period of English history more interesting than the English do. After all, it had a great influence on our country. Also, the class distinctions that so sorely occupied England at that time are still resounding; aren't they?

Also, the class distinctions that so sorely occupied England at that time are still resounding; aren't they?
just ask Kate Middleton! (Sorry-I confess to reading the British tabloids on line every now and again.)

DD says thank you for the list-she will be taking a course on the lit of the time in the fall, and wanted to do some reading before hand to better understand the context of the lit. She is more of a Renaissance specialist.

Is Froniga around? I think she and I and Rouan all share an affection for Elizabeth Goudge's novel The White Witch, set in that era.

Rosefolly

>Cindy-I would have sent her right to Penman for a start on THAT one!

My favorite part of that book was when the empress escaped the enemy in a blizzard wearing white and climbing down a rope from a tower, then riding on a waiting white horse. Loved it esp coz it was true!

The Wintrop Woman is an excellent book if you are interested in the first English to arrive, as well as the development of schisms early in the colony.

Question, coz this time period always confuses me - did the Civil War lead to the 30 year war in Europe or the other way around? The latter is actually more interesting to me and I wish I knew more about it. Any recs?

Rosefolly, I was just checking this thread to see if anyone had mentioned The White Witch. Glad (and amazed) to see that you remembered it being mentioned quite a while ago.

cindy, the 30 Years War was between the Spanish-Austrian-Hapsburg Empires + France starting before the English Civil War 1620-ish onwards.
Didn't involve England except that it kept its old enemies tied up elsewhere. Don't know much about it except that it was about religion and politics . . .what else are they about!

No I haven't read 'The Witch of BP' but I read The WW many many years ago but wonder if I've grown out of Eliz Goudge.

Frieda, I think I'm right in saying the E. Civil War is barely taught over here. Same as the period of the later Stuarts and the early 'Georges'. All those years ago when I 'did' English history for 'O' level we concentrated on the period from 1760 (Geo III) to 1914 but we never got past about 1865.
Kids today seem to do very Modern history esp. WWI & II.

I suppose for you in the US the 1600's onwards are important as the early colonies found their feet and grew. You may remember when we discussed something similar a while ago, and you, Frieda suggested a history book of such weight that it fell on your toe. Is there maybe a shorter, less dangerous book available that I could read to get a taste of those times in early America . . . but not a novel?

cece you are right that the tabloids have been doing down Kate M claiming 'sources' near to the Palace. Whether or not they are true (most probably not) it seems terrible for the girl and her family that no 'official' seems able to make some definitive statement.

Vee-I wasted a good bit of time early Monday morning reading the Daily Mail, the Mirror, the Sun and, for a different point of view...BBC, the Times and the Telegraph online. What a thanks for the girl after 4 years of putting up with all sorts of nonsense and cameras in her face at all hours and riff-raff littering the sidewalk in front of her flat!

As Meat Loves Salt
Maria McCann

Sets you right into the muck and blood of battle.
Very unlikeable main character.

Extremely vivid, well researched fiction.

cece the Daily Telegraph's cartoonist Matt, drew a good one last week.
It showed a father reading the 'Princess and the Pea' bed-time story to his little daughter.
"So the Princess lived happily ever after until she made the mistake of using the word toilet."
He is having a go at the Powers-that-Be not KM!

Re As Meat Loves Salt I just checked it out at Amazon uk and although I don't normally bother with their book reviews I was surprised to find them SO glowing it seemed as though perhaps the friends and family of the author had been encouraged to write them.
And it should be mentioned that it is listed among the books featured as recommended 'gay' reads, which might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Good point on the gay read.

I began reading without knowing this about the story. But I found it quite interesting to have the time period filtered through these characters. Especially the main character who, whatever his sexual orientation, was a really awful human being.

I enjoy reading books from this time period in English history (and even more so books set during the Restoration (Neal Stevenson's Baroque Cycle comes to mind as does The Incident of the Finger Post (that's earlier actually)) ). I also enjoy when an author tries to bring us into the mindset of characters whose actions often lead observers to say "I just don't understand how people could do that..." To portray the world as these immoral people see it is a challenge that really great writers succeed in doing. Nabokov is tops at this.

In As Meat Loves Salt, McCann brings us inside the mind of, well, a psychopath and at the same time makes a world so all encompassing, that as you are reading and absorbed in the book, her then is the only now. The modern day, even an inkling of it doesn't exist. There is no slip in tone or turn a phrase. Which means of course, there really isn't an awareness in the character's mind of psychology or psychosis or even homosexuality, or even much beyond survival, wounded pride and the meeting of basic needs.

To put in modern terms, the guy is, like, a total jerk. But in a time of such turmoil, this total jerk gets away with a lot of horrendous behavior. And because he sees the world in such a basic, carnal way, his view of the world is very immediate, sensory and vivid. The guy doesn't philosophize, he just acts.
Badly.

Can't say it is one of my favorite books. But boy, does it stay with you.

"Vee, you don't think the Ranters, Diggers, Levellers, Quakers and various other "movers" were interesting folk?"

I quite agree, Nip along to the Cambridge folk festival, and you can still see the traces of English Republicanism in the culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihvxo3azAIA

Here is a link that might be useful: Buford Stomp

Vee,the Puritans were anything but dull. May I refer you to "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" by David Hackett Fischer. And there has been quite a lot written about both Shakers and Quakers, in both England and America. ("Disenters", I think many were called?)

My goodness Phil, where have you been this many a long year?
And All Things Folk takes me right to those fag-smoke filled back rooms of pubs where the local folk group would meet every other Monday night and someone always sang 'All Around My Hat' in that special nasal twang while holding one of his ears. Much slaking of thirst with Carlsberg Special Brew.

Have been reading about English parish churches by that professional 'old fogey' Roy Strong, and he points out that the people to whom we give the over-all monika of Puritan ( I don't consider the Quakers to come under this heading) referred to themselves as the godly.

The music below is not godly but takes me back to 1975; so much water under the bridge, so little paddled in.

Here is a link that might be useful: Steeleye Span

Where have I been ? Nice of you to ask Vee :)
To cut a long story short I bought a mountain bike, and between work and riding there wasn't much time for reading.

Love Steeleye Span. Can't smoke in those pubs now though. Which is good.

As for the puritans, I've lost count of the times I've felt real anger boil up at the sight of the damaged statues, defaced by Cromwell's puritan thugs. The Chapter house at York Minster is a particular case in point, with its gallery of faceless / headless carvings.

I think it strange that the most recent parallel I've seen to this was the Taliban's 2001 assault on the ancient Afghan Buddha statues.

History does appear to repeat itself.

Here is a link that might be useful: Buddhas

philc, I never realized the horror of Cromwell until my first visit to Britain and my first trip to York. Winchester is another where the damage is still quite evident. And yes, very similar to the Taliban's reaction. Which just reminds us all over again that there can indeed be fundamentalists of any religion. And all of it is so damn sad.

(welcome back btw - don't think we've met, I've only been here a few years :)

I wonder if people in America realise with what distaste Puritans were generally regarded in the England? I'm sure when the first groups left in search of 'religious freedom' their neighbours heaved a sigh of relief.
The early settlers in Massachusetts with their semi-theocratic rules of government are described by US historian Kathleen Burk in Old World New World as living in families who 'became little cells of righteousness' guarding each others morals and spying and denouncing one another; she wonders how they managed to get any work done. ;-)
It has also been suggested elsewhere, that the undercurrent of Puritanism can be traced right down to various Presidential decisions of the 'Just War' theory and in attacking Middle Eastern countries to introduce them to 'civilisation'.
Of course we must remember that the Puritans were unfamiliar with the importance of oil in running a godly state so this idea might not hold true.

I wonder if youi realize how much distaste many Americans have for them as well. We are not all the same, you know. Besides, you guys kicked them out to come here, and we have to deal with them and their legacy. Thanks a bunch. Rather have gotten the criminals that were sent to Aussie.

Hey let's not tar everyone with the same brush. Read Anne Bradstreet's lovely poetry, an American puritan, happily married, who lived in New England.

No one could hate the defacing of the church statues and smashing of the exquisite stained glass windows more than I. But to be accurate, this was done in all of the major north European countries, not just in England. And it was not only Puritans who did this, but Protestants of every stripe. It was particularly extreme in Germany, with Martin Luther and the Reformation. I refer you to the Lord Kenneth Clark series on "Civilization", wherein he deals with this at great length.

I do get the analogy of the Taliban and the destruction of the Buddhas. But we have other Fundamentalists all around us who are neither Puritans nor Taliban.

Smashing staues was certainly not solely the preserve of Cromwell's men, iconoclastic fervour appeared as you say on the continent when the reformation got a bit further on than Luther - If I remember correctly, there would be well over 100 years between Luther's 95 theses (1517) and Cromwell (1649) - but England had largely escaped protestant religious fervour, preferring the more cynical exploitation of attacking Rome's power for political ends.

And this perhaps is the point. There is not a single brand of protestantism, there were all types, from Henry VIII's "English Catholicism" to some real extreme loonies out there who believed really preposterous stuff.

It's possibly safe to say that Cromwell appealed to the loonier end, and counted amongst his supporters people who were happy to smash heads off statues for religious reasons, but we mustn't forget that he was fundamentally a politition, soldier, republican and parliamentarian. Headless statues may be one of Cromwell's most lasting legacies, but it was not the greatest sin committed by his supporters, the Irish campaign, including the destruction of Drogheda with most of its population was a far more evil act. Possibly those defaced statues have a role in reminding us all of those dark times - a sort of negative memorial ?

And then (- as this is a "readers" forum -) Cromwell shut the theatres ! Directly after the age of Shakespeare, Marlow, Johnson....and worse was yet to come....when they reopened...RESTORATION COMEDY !!!

I don't think you can really blame these dreadful 17th century "Carry On" plays on Cromwell, but without him, they wouldn't have happened ;)

Weren't some of the London theatres shut down, off and on, during the time of Shakespeare, as well?

Cindy, I don't think any Puritans were 'kicked out' of England. They chose to leave of their own free will wanting a purer way of life. They felt the Church of England was quasi Roman Catholic and therefore, to them, idolatrous. As far as I know the only groups of people 'sent' to the American Colonies were the convicts who finished up in Georgia.
In England, the term 'puritan' refers to religious zealots often those following the teachings of John Calvin, although there were often even more extreme offshoot groups . . . Ranters, Levellers etc (as mentioned above). Perhaps the word has a slightly different meaning in the US, but here it would not be a complement to be so described!

Mary, I think the shutting down of theatres in Shakespeare's time was because of outbreaks of the plague.
Interesting what Phil says. The English, by nature, are not a people of extreme views (too idle to fire-up the grey matter?)
The Reformation under Henry VIII was largely led by the need for money, hence the closing of the monasteries and the sale of their lands. The country didn't suddenly turn 'Protestant' overnight.
Some popular historians tell us that the population could not have been happy with the religious changes that came during the reign of Edward VI and were glad when Mary reintroduced the Catholic Mass, but there is apparently little proof of this.
A recent book about Mary (sorry can't think of the writer's name) says that if it hadn't been for Foxe's Book of Martyrs
giving her a bad press, she would be considered a good Queen. Possibly, if she hadn't married a Spaniard and as long as the wind wasn't blowing the smoke from those 300+ fires in your direction.
Elizabeth did try to steer a central course and had no wish to 'see into men's souls' but with extreme Protestant views coming in from Europe on one hand and foolhardy young priests supported by France and Spain (long time enemies of England) trying to keep Catholicism alive, it is surprising more people didn't lose their lives.

The Puritans when they left England first settled in Holland, before relocating to America. Holland was known to be very tolerant of all sorts of cultures and religions in that day and age.

In the 1600's, there were many indentured servants "sent" over to the colony of Virginia. They had to work a certain number of years before they achieved the freer status of yeoman. If you look up the quaint term "Headright" you will find more information re the settling of Virginia.

For anyone wanting more information on the settling of New England in the 1600's, I highly recommend Nathanial Philbrick's NF work "Mayflower" about the founding of the Plymouth colony in Massachusetts by the "pilgrims". Philbrick, IMHO, deals fairly with both Europeans and Native American cultures already there.It's a long book, but well worth the read.

Mary, another book that I think informs the Mayflower is Russell Shorto's The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhatten and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America. I read the two back-to-back and it was interesting to read the different slants on our early history. People let the Puritan legacy, which was obviously important and influential, overshadow so many other facets of our early history.

Tony Horwitz has a new book on the way (April 29 release date) entitled A Voyage Long and Strange: Rediscovering the New World. Based on the following description from Amazon, I'm hoping it will shed more light on those who came to America before the pilgrims.

On a chance visit to Plymouth Rock, Tony Horwitz realizes heÂs mislaid more than a century of American history, from ColumbusÂs sail in 1492 to JamestownÂs founding in 16-oh-something. Did nothing happen in between? Determined to find out, he embarks on a journey of rediscovery, following in the footsteps of the many Europeans who preceded the Pilgrims to America.

An irresistible blend of history, myth, and misadventure, A Voyage Long and Strange captures the wonder and drama of first contact. Vikings, conquistadors, French voyageursÂthese and many others roamed an unknown continent in quest of grapes, gold, converts, even a cure for syphilis. Though most failed, their remarkable exploits left an enduring mark on the land and people encountered by late-arriving English settlers.

Tracing this legacy with his own epic trekÂfrom FloridaÂs Fountain of Youth to PlymouthÂs sacred Rock, from desert pueblos to subarctic sweat lodgesÂTony Horwitz explores the revealing gap between what we enshrine and what we forget. Displaying his trademark talent for humor, narrative, and historical insight, A Voyage Long and Strange allows us to rediscover the New World for ourselves.

Since Horwitz is a favorite of mine, I've already ordered it.

Here is a link that might be useful: A Voyage Long and Strange

Yes, Cindy, I was going to remind you of Georgia. It was only after the Colonies won the Revolutionary War that England had to find somewhere else to send their convicts. If you haven't read Colleen McCullough's Morgan's Run, I highly recommend it. It seems the first convicts sent to Australia were just dumped with very little means of survival.

Thanks for that; no, I was not aware of that example of Georgia. But my ignorance is nto a surprise: I have the same problem that Horowitz apparently had (its sad that I probably know more English history than I do American!). That book is so on my must have list - I love his writing and can well imagine what an eye opening book this will be.

georgia, thanks for the book recommendation. I will look for that one.