Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.51 AVERAGE
3.51 AVERAGE
medium-paced
Simon Jenkins rattles through the history of England in a brisk, no-nonsense fashion, summarising, precising, determining for all he's worth. A writer of a certain generation, this was no doubt how he was taught history at his presumably rather good school - short, sharp and with no room for ambiguity or doubt. The style has an utterly familiar ring to it for this is Tory history in essence: my country right or wrong, the forward march of progress, the glorious destiny of the English people, all for the best in the best all possible worlds.
This is massively nostalgic for me as it's very much the way I was taught history - chronologically as though there was an inexorable forward momentum to it, and with a focus on the great and not so great kings and other personages through whose lives the story of our nation was told. When someone started introducing nambypamby social stuff into the curriculum (brilliantly parodied by Craig Brown in 1966 And All That) I yawned inexorably. I realise of course now I was terribly wrong - for all the life of a Victorian scullery maid lacks the excitement of Henry VIII's insatiable shagging around, what happened to ordinary people, and not just those at the bottom of the heap but near the bottom and a little bit further up from it too, make a much bigger contribution than you'd imagine when focusing on the pageant and drama of monarchy.
Setting that aside though, this is a solid and readable trot through the kings and queens and later prime ministers and other politicians who have steered and shaped our country for better or worse. As a child I ate up L Du Garden Peach's Ladybird history series, most notably the two-volume Kings and Queens (to the point I can still name each monarch and dates of reigns from William the Conqueror [1066-87] to Elizabeth II [1952 - ] and no it's not nerdy thank you, but has won the day in more than one pub quiz I can tell you). Someone then gave me Lady Antonia Fraser's Kings and Queens of England, a whopping paperback volume that was more of the same but since published by Sceptre it had a lot more sex in it. Both works essentially boiled the monarchs and reigns down to their most basic constituent parts and like most Tory history provided simple judgements of each - William the Conq (stern but effective), William Rufus (shady, possibly homosexual), Henry I (just and fair but tragic), Edward I (hammer of the Scots and therefore a good egg who'd have done well at Eton), Edward II (weak and sexually deviant), Henry VI (fat and mad) etc.
Given each monarch/prime minister can only be given a handful of pages Jenkins adopts the same approach and it's very much in keeping with its National Trust origins (Jenkins is the current chair) - history presented in an attractively Laura Ashley style, with no failings or errors but lots of the messier and more inconvenient stuff left out.
A good read, but anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the country's history may want something more substantial. Perhaps a good event for someone you know who is thinking of immigrating and will face a Home Office citizenship test anytime soon.
This is massively nostalgic for me as it's very much the way I was taught history - chronologically as though there was an inexorable forward momentum to it, and with a focus on the great and not so great kings and other personages through whose lives the story of our nation was told. When someone started introducing nambypamby social stuff into the curriculum (brilliantly parodied by Craig Brown in 1966 And All That) I yawned inexorably. I realise of course now I was terribly wrong - for all the life of a Victorian scullery maid lacks the excitement of Henry VIII's insatiable shagging around, what happened to ordinary people, and not just those at the bottom of the heap but near the bottom and a little bit further up from it too, make a much bigger contribution than you'd imagine when focusing on the pageant and drama of monarchy.
Setting that aside though, this is a solid and readable trot through the kings and queens and later prime ministers and other politicians who have steered and shaped our country for better or worse. As a child I ate up L Du Garden Peach's Ladybird history series, most notably the two-volume Kings and Queens (to the point I can still name each monarch and dates of reigns from William the Conqueror [1066-87] to Elizabeth II [1952 - ] and no it's not nerdy thank you, but has won the day in more than one pub quiz I can tell you). Someone then gave me Lady Antonia Fraser's Kings and Queens of England, a whopping paperback volume that was more of the same but since published by Sceptre it had a lot more sex in it. Both works essentially boiled the monarchs and reigns down to their most basic constituent parts and like most Tory history provided simple judgements of each - William the Conq (stern but effective), William Rufus (shady, possibly homosexual), Henry I (just and fair but tragic), Edward I (hammer of the Scots and therefore a good egg who'd have done well at Eton), Edward II (weak and sexually deviant), Henry VI (fat and mad) etc.
Given each monarch/prime minister can only be given a handful of pages Jenkins adopts the same approach and it's very much in keeping with its National Trust origins (Jenkins is the current chair) - history presented in an attractively Laura Ashley style, with no failings or errors but lots of the messier and more inconvenient stuff left out.
A good read, but anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the country's history may want something more substantial. Perhaps a good event for someone you know who is thinking of immigrating and will face a Home Office citizenship test anytime soon.
informative
slow-paced
It's definitely a "short" history, as in its name. I think it suffers with being too broad. I prefer history books with a specific focus in mind, whereas this book, especially when it came to the mid 1800s and beyond just seemed an endless list of politician names.
Should be called history of Kings & Queens of England. Maybe the most boring book I've ever read.
Great for what it is: a broad-brush look at English history. However it lacks an analytical edge as Jenkins prefers to take the reader on a narrative journey through history without choosing to explain or analyse key events along the way.
Like speed reading history. Not a lot of commentary, lots of names and dates. I need pictures, maps and family trees to keep some of this history straight.
there’s so much to english history. but wow... what a journey! the fun part was making fun of historical people tbh
Read A Short History Of England by Simon Jenkins today. An interesting, if slightly intense, read. I do know a bit more about England now. #readingbooks
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.