The basics of the life of James no-last-name-at-birth-but-eventually-Scott, Duke of Monmouth and Earl of Buccleuch, are well known: He was the illegitimate child of the future King Charles II by Lucy Walter. Charles, who was in exile after the overthrow of the British Monarchy in 1649, had no ability to help his son, who grew up in poverty with his mother. Charles eventually stole the baby back, shortly before Lucy died, and when the monarchy was restored and Charles became Charles II, Monmouth began a rapid climb. Soon after his return, the boy was married to a child bride, Anna Scott, Countess of Buccleuch, whose mother was determined not to let the family earldom fall into the wrong hands and so offered to wed her to James-no-last-name. Charles then created the title Duke of Monmouth for James, and Monmouth gradually accumulated honors and military expertise and fame over the next two decades. He also grew up to be handsome and very personable (although just as dissolute as his notoriously womanizing father, who was credited with seventeen bastards). He was very popular with the lower classes.

His popularity and his occasionally radical ideas wouldn't have mattered much, if Charles had had a legitimate child. But his wife was barren. And Britain did not allow illegitimate children to succeed. So Charles's heir would be his brother James (then Duke of York, later James II and VII). And... York was Catholic.

Remember, this is the late seventeenth century. Neither England nor Scotland wanted a Catholic monarch (though they didn't really agree on what sort of Protestant they did want). There were various attempts to exclude York from the succession, which Charles fended off by shutting down the parliaments involved. As this was happening, Monmouth the Golden Boy was becoming more and more associated with what would become the Whig party -- certainly with the anti-York party. So much so that he was actually forced into exile before Charles II died.

And Charles II died relatively young in 1685, and James II took the throne, and the surviving Whigs were horrified. To try to put someone -- anyone -- else on the throne, people started putting it about that Monmouth was legitimate, and hence Charles's heir. Monmouth was convinced to leave his safe exile (where he was living happily with a woman he deeply loved) and invade England. When he arrived, though, with little money and few weapons, he found it all but impossible to raise troops, and when his small army of peasants ran into the (smaller but much better) royalist army at the Battle of Sedgemoor, Monmouth was utterly defeated. Those of his troops who were not slain in the field were often killed afterward at the Bloody Assizes, or transported to the West Indies; Monmouth himself was taken about a week after the battle and executed. James II was utterly triumphant... for three years, until Monmouth's friend William of Orange invaded England on his own behalf and that of his wife, Mary the daughter of James II. James was defeated, William and Mary allowed the "Glorious Revolution" to modernize England, and Monmouth's allies, such as survived, were mostly pardoned.

Those are the facts. But what is the motivation? Was Monmouth truly an independent actor, or was he mostly led about by others? I know two recent biographies of Monmouth, this one and Anna Keay's The Last Royal Rebel: The Life and Death of James, Duke of Monmouth, which is much longer and more substantial. There is also David Chandler's Sedgemoor 1685: From Monmouth's Invasion to the Bloody Assizes, which covers only the very end of Monmouth's life, so it's weak on motivation but rich in detail.

Keay thinks Monmouth was his own man; Brennan thinks he was much more a puppet. Who is right? I would say that Keay makes the better case -- but that's because Keay makes the more substantial case. Keay's book is much longer, perhaps a little better written, and documented. It's hard to trust Brennan, because she never cites sources. And yet there is a sort of breezy efficiency about Brennan's book: She knows where she is heading, and she gets there, and you get the picture. There is no bogging down.

Unfortunately, there are reasons to doubt the accuracy of the book. For example, it says on p. 116 that the battle of Sedgemoor took place at "Westernzoyland." It didn't; it took place at "Westonzoyland." (No, I'm not making that name up! It's an actual place in southwest England, near the town of Bridgwater.) The index is pretty sparse, too. The whole thing feels like a bit of a rush job.

Conclusion: If you really want to know about Monmouth, or about Sedgemoor for that matter, you will need more than this book. It's too thin and too one-sided. On the other hand, it's a useful counter-argument to Keay. On the gripping hand, if you just want to know the rough history of an interesting figure in the crazy world of Restoration politics, and of the political situation that led to the Glorious Revolution, this might be just the book. ( )

Full disclosure, I’m friends with the author and that certainly impacted my reason for choosing this. However, like many Americans, I love the intrigues and scandals of British royal history, so I was eager to learn about an historical figure I was unfamiliar with.

This book is very readable, and comparatively short for an historical biography. The writing is economical - only the critical things needed to put Monmouth in perspective are addressed. There is not a lot of unnecessary background on the various monarchs before Charles II. In addition to Monmouth’s parentage and upbringing, a lot of time is devoted to the political atmosphere following Cromwell’s Commonwealth (a period with no monarchy, after the execution of Charles I). I found this part fascinating. The author introduces and gives some context for the major players who will shape Monmouth, such as Shaftesbury, but also the early development of the Whig and Tory political parties.

Though the author, like any good historian, tries to be impartial, some bias creeps through. And I was honestly delighted (as an outsider looking in). The author has an obvious affection for Monmouth, as mentioned in the introduction, but doesn’t have such a favorable view of Cromwell, or James II: "James 11 was a vain, petty, frivolous, mean man and such behaviour would not have been beneath him." Since James was the very reason for the Exclusion Crisis and rebellion, it’s not unsurprising that he is viewed this way by primary sources of the time, and contemporary historians. It made me interested to read a biography of James II.

One challenge of this book was that the author assumes the audience has a basic familiarity of major events of the time period. Some things are referenced as if common knowledge, but not fully explained until much later. The “Secret Treaty of Dover”, the “Rye House Plot” and the “Exclusion Crisis” are all mentioned multiple times as having an impact on Monmouth but are not explained until late in the book. This is not uncommon for American authors writing about events surrounding the Civil War, so I would recommend that non-UK readers pop into Wikipedia for a quick overview before reading.

One downside to the economical writing style is that some things are not expanded on that really should have been. It is never explained how the “Popish Plot” was revealed as fake, which I found very dissatisfying. An entire chapter discusses the plot, and its impact on Monmouth’s upcoming rebellion, but nothing as to how it was later discredited. I also would have liked to see a final chapter on the fallout for James II. The book ended with Monmouth’s execution (which I know makes sense), but James II was later deposed. As replacing him was the rebellion’s purpose, it would have made a nice wrap up to have that included.

Overall, this was an excellent biography that made me eager to learn more about this time of history. I look forward to more from Laura Brennan. ( )