Maureen WallerBesprekingen

This is a book that does what it says on the tin. When you've finished it, you'll have a pretty clear idea about the sights, smells and activities of this overcrowded city and centre of commerce as it enters the eighteenth century. You'll read about rich and poor, immigrant Huguenots, prostitutes, life in the taverns and coffee houses. You'll find out what each stage of life is like, from newborn to elderly, for the well, the ill and diseased, the working person and the wealthy resident. It's full of incident and telling detail. A good, lively and informative read.

A popular history book. I enjoyed reading about the qveens. And learned for the first time to distinguish Mary I from Mary Queen of Scots! No wonder that period had always seemed confused to me.

This book is so dense with (fascinating) detail I couldn't read it from cover to cover. A couple of chapters here and there between novels meant I was able to absorb so much information and marvel at the authors mind-boggling research.
And it's great fun to boot. What an odd expression, I wonder where it came from? Maureen would know!

An excellent portrait of life in London as the end of the war approached. Told primarily from a female perspective (hardly surprising given that the author is a woman, and many of the men were away from the city), it superbly captures the both the trials and the spirit in London.

For chronicles of London life, I may switch my allegiance from Liza Picard to Maureen Walker. 1700: Scenes from London Life fits neatly in between Picard’s Restoration London and Dr. Johnson’s London, although obviously some of the same ground gets covered. Walker follows the life history of a typical Londoner – marriage, childhood, disease, death, fashion, amusements, etc. The book is full of pleasant little anecdotes:


* On the eternal working of the law of unintended consequences – because there was a tax on marriage, many (Walker estimates a third) of weddings were black market. (There was also a tax on bachelors and spinsters older then 25, so many of the couples involved in black-market weddings never saw each other again.) Because there was a tax on windows, most people bricked theirs up, not helping indoor air quality any.


* On some of the more gruesome results of difficult childbirth: Doctors had a variety of instruments designed to dismember a dead child in the womb so it could be extracted, and midwives were admonished to bury stillborn children (although not in a churchyard; they were not baptized) rather than just throwing them out a convenient window (hopefully, not one that had been bricked up).


* The “Bills of Mortality” provide insight into the number of ways you could shuffle of the mortal coil. “Ague and fever” (presumably malaria) was the second greatest cause of death (3676 in 1700) after “convulsions” (4613). Twenty-nine people were executed; 11 were murdered. Eighty-three died of “evil”, 5 of “grief”, 6 of “head-mould-shot” (?); 69 of “French pox”; 11 were “livergrown”; 189 of “spotted fever and purples”; 70 of “surfeit”, and 53 of “worms”. It was especially hard on children – 546 “abortive and stillborn”; 78 where the cause of death was “children or infants” (apparently no further explanation was necessary) and 69 “overlaid” (perhaps some of these were “postnatal abortions).


* The lack of sanitary plumbing made for interesting situations. Samuel Pepys went into his cellar one day to find that his neighbor’s cess-pit had collapsed into it. Pepys also recounts a conversation with Lady Sandwich that was carried on while the Lady used her chamber pot. In the dining room. During diner.


* The lack of street addresses made for some interesting business advertisements:


At Mr. Barnes and Mr. Appleby’s Booth, between the Crown Tavern and Hospital Gate, over against The Crossed Daggers, next to Miler’s Droll Booth, in West Smithfield, where the English and Dutch flags, with Barnes and the Two German Maidens pictures will hang out, during the time of Bartholomew Fair, will be seen the most excellent and incomparable performances in Dancing on the Slack Rope…


* General illiteracy made it necessary to use standard descriptive signs for businesses; some of these were obvious (Lock of Hair for wigmakers); others were not (Indian Queen for linen drapers).


* Coffee shops were ubiquitous; there were over 2000, and not a Starbucks to be had. They were exclusively male domains; women complained that coffee made men impotent, men countered that it decreased flatulence. Many became impromptu business offices; Mr. Lloyd’s coffee shop was used by ship owners and Mr. Lloyd began recording ship sailings on a chalkboard as a courtesy.


* The most notorious brothel was owned by Elizabeth Wisebourn, a clergyman’s daughter. She made sure that all her young ladies attended church every Sunday, and that they always lifted their skirts above their ankles when descending the stairs from the balcony. They got a lot of new customers that way.


* Hanging was a widely attended public spectacle. The condemned would stop at several taverns along the way from Newgate to Tyburn (one commented he would pay for his drink on the way back). The executioner got into the spirit of things as well; one got so drunk that he accidentally hanged one of the clergymen ministering to the condemned.



Well-illustrated with contemporary engravings; a nice bibliography (although there could be a better map). If there’s a flaw, the book ends a little too abruptly at the end of the chapter on crime and punishment; a little summing up would have been nice.½

The history of the last three Stuarts to rule England: James II, Mary (of William&Mary) and Anne. Quick history run down: Charles I was executed by his people. His eldest son, Charles II, was invited back to rule after living in exile. Charles II died without legitimate issue, so his younger brother James II inherited. Unfortunately, James II had publicly converted to Catholicism during a time that England was so viciously anti-Catholic (just as the Catholic countries were viciously anti-Protestant) that Catholics were banned from serving in the military or holding office, and were still attacked in the streets. His choice of religion, his lack of political accumen or ability to compromise, and his complete lack of personal charm made him an unpopular king. When his new Catholic wife, Mary Beatrice of Modena, gave birth to a healthy baby boy (who would presumably be raised Catholic, meaning that the next King of England would *also* be Catholic), it served as the catalyst for Parliament to invite his oldest daughter to rule in his stead. Mary, who had married William (elected Prince of Orange), insisted that they rule jointly. William headed to England with an army, and James II fled. Mary and William assumed the throne, rocked the war of the Spanish Succession and a few other wars that all blend together, and in the end secured the right to trade slaves through Spanish territories, which basically made England's fortunes in the next century. Mary, then William died, and so Mary's younger sister Anne assumed the throne. Anne had [seventeen pregnancies, but none of her children survived, and so after her death the Stuart line of rulers was broken. Although their younger half-brother James III (the Pretender) was alive and constantly trying to become King of England, he never succeeded, and the throne went to the Hanovers in the form of George I.

The deck was stacked against this book from the start. The first problem is the title and central conceit: that Mary and Anne were "ungrateful" and "stole" their father's crown. Anyone who knows anything about James II knows he lost that crown all by himself. No one wanted that clumsy, narrow-minded bigot on the throne a second longer, and after reading about the numerous instances he could have saved his claim but didn't, either out of cowardice or misreading of the situation or just stupidity, I couldn't blame them. (Lisollet, my favorite historical figure of the time, said "The more I see of this King, the more excuses I find for the Prince of Orange, and the more admirable I think he is." Of his exile, Madame de Sevigne said it even more succinctly: "When one listens to him, one realises why he is here.") And as someone who grew up in a democratic nation, I find it very hard to believe anyone "deserves" a throne just by virtue of birth. From my perspective, James II had a more than fair chance of ruling, but he screwed it up repeatedly and so was justly removed. Waller talks about James II like his rights were violated, but if anyone's rights were violated, it was the countless peasants and slaves without a vote or voice at all. Waller stops trying to portray Mary and Anne in the worst possible light once James II is dead, and the book is better for the lightening of the authorial judgment. Her other mis-step is to switch between time points, so that first James is exiled in France, and then abruptly (without any transition) we're back in time watching William III grow up. Confusing!

That said, Waller lards the book with the full texts of letters and copious quotes, so one truly gets a feel for their voices. And she has a good grasp of the history of the time, which is pretty complicated (due to being more globally-reaching than previous eras). I would have liked more citations and less insertion by the author of the motivations or feelings of the historical figures, but in the end I did feel like I learned a bit from this book. And it's written with a clear, lucid style which is all too rare.

So many of WWII related books are devoted to the military portion of the war or the Holocaust that the British home front is greatly neglected. It was fascinating to read a book that just concentrated on such a small time period and on the UK. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who in interested in the social history of war.

In the recent equal marriage debates when the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby announced that his and (some of) the Church of England’s opposition was ‘not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good’, I did wonder whether the House of Lords’ library carried a copy of Maureen Waller’s book. Perhaps if it, and the House of Commons library, had members would have been a little less sure about pontificating about the longevity of the institution and its unchanging nature since their female colleagues, constituents (and wives) had only just about achieved equal heterosexual marriage in the very late twentieth century. And although Waller does focus on devoted love and love enduring beyond death – the happiness and support Margaret Cavendish found with the older Duke of Newcastle, awful Pepys is quite upset by his wife Elizabeth’s death and Lady Susan Lennox finding a happy marriage after being dumped by George III - it is the horrors of marriage that remain haunting.

There are the terribly sad criminal conversation cases when servants turned on adulterous couples, inspected bed linen, peered through keyholes and took bribes. There is the truly barbaric case of Con Phillips, duped and raped and harassed by bigamy trials and legal battles throughout her life. She survived but only by her wits. The Countess of Strathmore’s case is justly famous but needs repeating again and again because of its awfulness and what was done to her reputation by a wicked man. Waller shines a light on these familiar stories by extracts from contemporary sources such as William Gouge’s Of Domesticall Duties, Hannah Woolley The Gentlewoman’s Companion, Lord Halifax’s Advice to a Daughter and The Hardships of the English Laws in Relation to Wives.

Why women risked the dangers of marriage when they faced such legal and economic dangers if it all turned out wrong is not entirely a mystery. A charming, dashing suitor could (and still does) sway the most astute of minds and the prospect of singledom was terrible for those who longed for something else. As Harriet Smith said to Emma Woodhouse ‘you will be an old maid! -- and that's so dreadful!’ ‘Never mind, Harriet, I shall not be a poor old maid,’ as Emma replied.

I enjoyed this lively history of two English Queens.

It would be SO much easier to follow if the chapters were in chronological order, especially as so many of the characters share the names Charles, James, William, Anne and Mary!½

Although I am interested in the history of the English monarch, I found this book to be very dry and a bit boring. it is divided into multiple parts. At first it gives a series of biographies for each of the important actors of the time, Queen Mary Beatrice, Princess Anne, Princess Mary, King James II, and Prince William of Orange. These biographies cover the same time period and often overlap. I think it could have been much better written or organized. While both sisters were vilified, Anne came across as the master manipulator. The author showed her obvious dislike for Anne through her descriptions of her physical appearance and behavior. Further, she described Mary's reign in detail while ignoring Anne's. In addition, I expected to read more information about King James' son. The book did not describe his attempts to retake the crown or how Mary and Anne thwarted such attempts. Overall, I found this book to be disappointing.½

One of those books that makes you wish you majored in history. Interesting, easy to read, full of fascinating trivia. Contains the sort of information that you later find yourself quoting to your friends with the preface "did you know that...?" Its only fault: too many details.

A very interesting book. Some chapters are better than others, I particularly liked the chapters on food, coffee shops and working life. I read it from start to finish which was slow going - I'd recommend reading it a chapter or two at a time.½

Have just started reading and is so far proving to be a nice easy read. It is about the 6 Queens of England (Mary, Elizabeth I and II, Victoria, the other Mary and Anne).

This is a very effective look at the six women who have been queen regnants in England. Until Bloody Mary, there had never been a queen in power. There had only been Queen consorts. For all of her faults, Mary earns a healthy respect from this book's analysis of the unique predicament she found herself in. Women were thought of as helpless, worthless beings and here she found herself with no precedents in the history of mankind for a woman in charge. Her step-sister Elizabeth found herself faced with the same challenges, although thanks to her elder sister and also Elizabeth's excellent instincts, she managed to navigate the sexism much more effectively. This book illuminates Elizabeth's sheer lifetime genius for dealing with all of the related complications of being a queen regnant for the first time in history. The book continues throughout the other queens....Victoria and onto the current Queen Elizabeth II and effectively weaves an analysis of the adaptation and precedence that were set by each of these remarkable women. Each lived in a distinctly unique period of history and had to shape their reigns based upon the prejudice and the very limited precedence set for her by her predecessors.

An interesting concept, focusing on the queens regnant in England. I had no idea that there had been six - Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II. Unfortunately for the story, however, the power of these reigning queens really falls away after Elizabeth I, and the stories of the latter queens suffers for it. Victoria was a fascinating woman and a powerful personality, but as a monarch in a constitutional monarchy, she didn't rule in the same way that Elizabeth I ruled. And poor Elizabeth II - a very nice person to have over for tea, I am sure - but a powerful queen? Hardly. Still, this was a well written book that told the stories of the queens well.½

An excellent portrait of life in London as the end of the war approached. Told primarily from a female perspective (hardly surprising given that the author is a woman, and many of the men were away from the city), it superbly captures the both the trials and the spirit in London.

I'm puzzled, LT had real difficulty finding this, yet there are 1985 readers, and a connecrtion from Essex! Now I need to make up some tags.