The style of this history of English monarchy will be familiar to readers of Mitchell’s (rather good) Observer newspaper columns: seriousness combined with humour. Unfortunately, the formula that works splendidly for a short newspaper article begins to look more than a tad strained when spread over 400 pages. Mitchell’s manic determination to cram in as many jokes as inhumanly possible eventually had a distinctly lowering effect on me. The humour isn’t exactly subtle (King Cnut’s name sounds a bit rude, that sort of thing) and the book is essentially a passable stand-up routine that goes on far too long. His frequent jibes at professional historians, rather like a petulant schoolboy slagging off his teachers, also got on my nerves after a while. Mitchell acknowledges that historical empathy isn’t his strong point. Still, his constant amazement/amusement that the past was not like the present, is ridiculously misplaced in a history book. Unruly is sporadically funny, in a hit-and-miss professional gagster’s sort of way, but certainly not essential reading as either comedy or history. ( )

This was a birthday book from my history graduate son. The book works through the monarchs of England from the beginning as far as Elizabeth I. The style is jocular but presumably accurate. The swearing and crudity is meant to be funny but I'm not sure it is. It reminded me of the way some of my undergraduate lecturers would add a swear word to be in with the kids. It never worked. Otherwise, an enjoyable read and worth his doing I guess. His approach to the providence of God is interesting. He is very dismissive of those who see God's hand in events but offers no real alternative approach. The book filled me in on the bits of history I've missed over the years.
Interesting quote (p 232) Referring to anti-semitism/the expulsion of the Jews in 1290, he says "Their certainty that they were right is worth remembering because it means there’s probably stuff we’re certain is right that future ages will correctly judge to be monstrous." ( )

As someone who has a reasonable handle on English History, there's not a lot in here that's new information. However, rarely has a canter through the various Kings of England been such fun. There's nothing sacred here, Mitchell slays all those sacred cows with verve. The asides that compare the condition he is discussing to the current political situation are relevant but will date rapidly. There is considerable strong language, which I found amusing although some may not. I listened to this narrated by the author and it was quite fun in a agitated way. ( )

This was very well done. I like David Mitchell‘s droll humour and he writes well about the subject. No endnoting, but the further reading list contains some good sources. I ended up buying the audio immediately afterward with a spare Libro.fm credit. ( )

I’m a big admirer of David Mitchell on TV, especially “Would I Lie to you?” Until this week, I had not experienced him as a writer. We don’t get his column in The Observer down under. I was therefore quite surprised to discover I didn’t enjoy David In Print. Mitchell’s droll humour, much anticipated by me, just doesn’t fit comfortably with the history. I too quickly got tired. ( )

I have always imagined that if I were from the UK (or any country where I was funding monarchs with my taxes) I would be a dedicated anti-royalist. As I have no skin in the game I am pretty neutral, but philosophically opposed to any system where merit is conflated with bloodlines. If you are interested in knowing a teeny tiny amount of information about several hundred years worth of English monarchs that will make you hate the system you will enjoy this fun summary. This is essentially the royal history equivalent of 88 Lines About 44 Women. Mitchell is smart, funny, and clearly knowledgable. His stand-up approach to delivery can get overwhelming so if you are going to listen to this you will want to spread it out over time. A 3.5 for me. ( )

I just like him, okay?
And I enjoy listening to him. And he was promoting the shhhhugar out of this on The Platform Formerly Known As Twitter.
It was great fun. Informative and snarky, it debunks the pop history of the monarchs up to Elizabeth I. Mitchell is definitely in the Richard III killed the princes (or at least had them killed) camp - so much for Josephine Tey. It's always a mistake to leave any other claimant to the throne alive. Monarchs were not the tourist attraction figureheads they are today. They were the totalitarian rulers who lived in danger of usurpation - of the fatal variety.

If Bill Bryson used cuss words and wrote a book about the British monarchy, this would be it. Funny, irreverent, and I afraid of finding the hilarity in a whole system that claims a gold hat makes you a ruler. The book flits between the facts of each monarch but doesn’t go too deep with any of them. Come for the history, stay for the humor. ( )

Although I enjoy history books, I wouldn't have bought this myself: I got it as a Christmas present. I've been dipping in and out of it since Boxing Day and finally finished it. I haven't seen much of this author's comedy as it didn't really appeal, and I found this book a mixed bag. The author doesn't like monarchs very much: the first were thugs and later ones idiots. He has some respect for one or two who were competent at their job. There are some insights into how Magna Carta and the development of Parliament was due to weak kings rather than strong ones.

Some bits were mildly amusing, whereas some was puerile schoolboy humour - he gets loads of mileage out of King Canute's/Cnut's name - and there's a lot of f* bomb as well. Plus various personal fixations about current day political issues etc. are aired, sometimes at length. Luckily, I've read or seen documentaries on a lot of it before or I think I would have got lost, especially since he often jumps about between periods of history or an individual monarch's reign and discusses things out of order.

There was some material I knew little about - the Anglo Saxon and Danish kings before Alfred the Great for example. And I have gaps in the Plantagenet dynasty. I did know about the war between King Stephen and Empress Matilda from reading/watching the Cadfael series since that is set against that background. The trouble is, the style doesn't really lend itself to helping me remember any of the bits I didn't already know about.

There's a really odd error around page 170 where he insists that the Order of the Garter moto, Honi soit qui mal y pense, is on the modern day passport. It isn't: the motto of the Royal family appears on it which is probably older - Dieu et mon droit. As this is easy to check it's strange that no one at the publishers picked it up. But it did make me wonder how carefully some of the other facts, new to me, were verified.

The book isn't a keeper but it finishes with praise of Shakespeare so it gains a star for that and overall I would judge it an OK 2 stars. ( )

What a very enjoyable read. A whirlwind tour through the Kings (and occasional Queens) of England delivered with both interesting history and various asides and tangents that are funny and interesting and also relevant. A friend recommended this and I really had fun with it. Parts of my US history background meant that I didn't know as much as I hoped but I learned alot and want to read more of the serious works he used to write this. Including at least one one my shelf right now.

A fascinating book, not quite the "Horrible Histories for grownups" as it's been tagged as the subject matter is rather depressingly more serious than that. Mitchell looks at the history of king and queen-dom rather than the history of individual kings and queens (though of course it is also that). He shows how the English monarchy evolved from the mythological King Arthur through the squabbling Saxon and Danish war-lords, the Norman invaders (who's hearts and interests were often more in France than England) and onwards to Elizabeth, the last of the Tudors. How the role of "King" (or "Queen" evolved from the toughest and wiliest leader to a hereditary office (with heredity often loosely claimed by the toughest and wiliest contender), an office held by God's appointed. Parallel is the development of what were to become our democratic institutions - initially put in place by other powerful men to counter the depredations of a weak or dangerous king rather than out of any altruistic notions of human rights... If I had any lingering feelings of British exceptionalism this book ensured they were well and truly dispensed with. An interesting read, with Mitchell's snide asides (which may date quite quickly) and hilarious captions to the illustrations leavening the somewhat depressing view of human nature the book provides. Recommended. ( )

ALONG look into the history of England's kings and queens. Although, I imagine it would have to be long, given how many there were? This is the stuff you didn't learn in history class. Sometimes funny, sometimes disgusting, sometimes serious, but at all times with a great touch of sarcasm, Mitchell presents the history in such a way as to make it fun. I'm not at all sure how the English and their royals would feel about it, but as a former colonist in America, I thought it was great! ( )