Unruly: A History of England's Kings and Queens

by David Mitchell

Discover who we are and how we got here in comedian, star of Peep Show and student of history David Mitchell's Unruly: A History of England's Kings and Queens - a thoughtful, funny exploration of the founding fathers and mothers of England, and subsequently Britain.

Think you know your kings and queens? Think again.

In Unruly, David Mitchell explores how England's monarchs, while acting as feared rulers firmly guiding their subjects' destinies, were in reality a bunch of lucky sods who were mostly as silly and weird in real life as they appear today in their portraits.

Taking us right back to King Arthur (he didn't exist), David tells the founding story of post-Roman England right up to the reign of Elizabeth I (she dies). It's a tale of narcissists, inadequate self-control, excessive beheadings, middle-management insurrection, uncivil wars, and at least one total Cnut, as the population evolved from having their crops nicked by the thug with the largest armed gang to bowing and paying taxes to a divinely anointed king.

How this happened, who it happened to and why it matters in modern Britain are all questions David answers with brilliance, wit and the full erudition of a man who once studied history - and won't let it off the hook for the mess it's made.

A funny book about a serious subject, Unruly is for anyone who has ever wondered how we got here - and who is to blame.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Humor, Historical, Comedy, British Literature

431 pages, Hardcover

First published September 27, 2023

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

David Mitchell is a British actor, comedian and writer. He is one half of the comedic duo Mitchell and Webb, alongside Robert Webb, whom he met at Cambridge University. There they were both part of the Cambridge Footlights, of which Mitchell became President. Together the duo starred in the Channel 4 sitcom Peep Show in which Mitchell plays Mark Corrigan. The show received a BAFTA and won three British Comedy Awards, while Mitchell won the award for Best Comedy Performance in 2009. The duo have written and starred in several sketch shows including The Mitchell and Webb Situation, That Mitchell and Webb Sound and most recently That Mitchell and Webb Look. Mitchell and Webb also star in the UK version of Apple's Get a Mac advertisement campaign. Their first film, Magicians, in which Mitchell plays traditional magician Harry, was released on 18 May 2007.

On his own, Mitchell has played Dr James Vine in the BBC1 sitcom Jam & Jerusalem and Tim in the one-off ShakespeaRe-Told adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew. He also is a frequent participant on British panel shows, including QI, Mock the Week and Have I Got News for You, as well as Best of the Worst and Would I Lie to You? on each of which he is a team captain, and The Unbelievable Truth which he hosts. Regarding his personal life, Mitchell considers himself a "worrier" and lives in a flat in Kilburn.

Author biography and photograph obtained from Wikipedia.

Reviews

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I defied the algorithm.

[Nataliya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some books try really hard to be funny and fail. This one though genuinely is. Imagine it told to you by a grumpy uncle after a few beers, a bit crass, acerbic and irreverent, heavy on unabashed personal opinions and judgment (Mitchell is Team Harold Godwinson over Willy the Conqueror, and don’t get him started on Stephen and Matilda or Edward the Confessor or the shittiness of King John). Objectivity — well, you can find it in a textbook; Mitchell here would rather invite you for a bit of a grumpy heart-to-heart (and one unrelated rant about a James Bond movie), with a hefty helping of swearing.

“They were both twats. They may not have been able to help being twats – the mores and values of their times and of their class may have made them twats. But they were twats and terrible things happened as a result.”

The history of English monarchy, from King Arthur* (who didn’t exist) through unnumbered Anglo-Saxon rulers (like they literally didn’t count since William the Conquerer gets the first number, ridiculously so) until Elizabeth I is full of things that can be mocked and ridiculed. Kingship is not as dignified as royalty would have liked us to believe. Let’s face it, quite a few of the rulers were inept, stupid, horny and brutish incompetent idiots whose pastime often involved torturing and murdering rival claimants to the throne who usually were close family. And let’s not even get into the ridiculous multi-century habit of English kings pretending even to themselves to be rulers of France. Or the inert lump that was also known as Henry VI. Or the divine right of kings that’s power grab and nothing else.

*

To quote the book blurb, “It’s a tale of bizarre and curious ascensions, inadequate self-control, and at least one total Cnut, as the English evolved from having their crops stolen by the thug with the largest armed gang to bowing and paying taxes to a divinely anointed King.” And in between the jokes and irreverence I realized I’ve learned quite a bit of history outside of the requisite Edwards II-III and the Tudors - especially about the “pre-Willy” part, and I had a blast doing that.

I listened to the entire book on audio, and its conversational style works perfectly for listening. 5 stars for how educationally and delightfully entertained I was the entire time.

——————

Also posted on my blog.

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five stars worth of "educational book" with a lot of funny nonsense thrown in.
You might learn something new and you'll get a few laughs.
I can't see that as anything but winning.



Most of the dry & crunchy stories from world history are easier (for me) to digest when the person telling the story has a sense of humor about it. I mean, I'm an adult reading this stuff for my personal benefit and it's not like I have to take a quiz at the end.
So yeah. I know there are more just-the-facts-ma'am books, but I doubt any of them will make you lol like Mitchell's version.



Side note:
I know this has nothing to do with England's kings, but the most memorable part of the book for me was when Mitchell skewered the last Daniel Craig Bond film as a huge disappointment because they killed Bond off in the end.
Why would you do that?! Why would you do that?! Bond doesn't die! The entire point of Bond (and characters like him) is that they live past all of us. You don't fucking kill them off.



Marvel should take note of this because recasting IS a viable option for fictional characters. And let's face it, probably would have saved their entire franchise, as it is currently circling the toilet, while they scrambled to dig up more and more obscure characters to be played by less and less expensive actors.
Just recast Iron Man, Captain America, & Black Widow! Is Hollywood really only peopled with fucktards? Apparently.
Sorry.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
But I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a while now.



If you've ever wanted to learn about the beginning of England's royal whatnot and all the rigamarole that goes with the pomp and circumstance, this is the book for you.
But listen to the audiobook because David Mitchell's comic timing is hilarious.
Highly Recommended even if you don't give two shits about the subject matter.

[Melindam · Rating 5 out of 5]

“For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!”
(Shakespeare: King Richard II, Act 3 Scene 2)

David Mitchell himself quotes this as his bookend, so it's fitting I begin my review with it.

In a way, this is very much the gist of his book, though because he is a comedian, he has the talent to turn these "sad stories" into ironic, tongue-in-cheek, profane, practical, unscientific and very entertaining.

Just to repeat, David Mitchell is a comedian and an actor, NOT a historian* and as the title suggests, this is a ridiculous book, NOT a serious one. The stories he is telling us -starting from nonexistent, mythical King Arthur and finishing with Elizabeth I - are still mostly accurate, but as they are viewed through the lens of the 21st century, they are also out-of-context, incomplete and incongruous. It's a given. Mitchell is openly judgmental, uses the benefit of hindsight mercilessly and serves it all with lots of scathing humour and swearing.

And his views about the Monarchy?



Well, not really, no, but he quotes this from the Monty Python Holy Grail movie. :)
If you are interested in what he really thinks, I very much recommend reading his book or -as I did- listening to him narrating it. It was a great experience.

I felt almost bereft that he left the storytelling off at the Tudors and did not go any further despite of what he claims at the end.
I hope he'll eventually decide to continue with the romp.

Extracts from the book linked from The Guardian :

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...

----------------

*He has a degree in the subject from the University of Cambridge - thanks to Cecily for drawing my attention to it.

[Andy Marr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely brilliant! Easily the best book I've read about the history of the English, or any other, monarchy.

[Cecily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mitchell, who has a history degree from Cambridge, romps through English monarchs (with the odd mention of the Scots and Welsh, and rather more about the French) from the fictional King Arthur to Elizabeth I, last of the Tudors. There are maps, family trees, index, pictures, and diversions including a long rant about why Daniel Craig’s final James Bond film (No Time to Die) enraged him, and the damage caused by the related forces of nationalism, cronyism, and Brexit.

It achieves its aim to be “funny but not spoof, irreverent but not trivial”. There are similarities with Sellar and Yeatman’s classic, 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England, and Terry Deary’s Horrible Histories (such as The Stormin' Normans and The Terrible Tudors).

I really enjoyed it - his commentary more than the factual details - but his style isn’t for everyone. This review gives you a feel of it.

It helps if you have a general knowledge of English history, but are fuzzy on the details, have no great reverence for the monarchy, don’t mind casual swearing, and like the snarky humour of David Mitchell of Mitchell & Webb and Peep Show (not the author of Cloud Atlas, though I like him too). It’s comprehensive, but explicitly skewed to his personal interests (those who wear sparkly metal hats) and peeves (Edward the Confessor, especially his underserved sainthood). It may not endure as long as Sellar and Yeatman’s book because of contemporary slang, jokes about things like artisanal cheese, and recent political trivia.


Image: Two portraits captioned thus, “These depictions of Alfred the Great and Aethelred the Unready were created hundreds of years apart and hundreds of years after the deaths of their subjects. They nevertheless provide an accurate guide to the two kings' relative levels of competence.”

English identity

The nature of Englishness is a topical, and often controversial, issue:
“What do we stand for really? Freedom and democracy? Tradition and hierarchy? Bad food and sarcasm? Traffic and disappointment? Ships and factories? Rain and jokes?”

Mitchell thinks:
“Monarchy is what England has instead of a sense of identity.”
He rails against Brexit, and the ideology that polarised the country and made it happen.
“The usual pattern of radical change spun as restoration of something ancient.”

The bit

I read this on trains to and through Germany, where we visited several towns in the Rhine-Hessen region, and immediately adopted Mitchell’s terminology, as we searched for each one's “bit”:
“When my wife and I are visiting a nice town or village for the first time, the question we always ask is ‘Where’s the bit?’... the main bit. The nice bit. The bit you’re supposed to go and walk round where the stuff is. The bit that, once seen, gives you the authority to say you’ve been to the place.”


Image: Cartoon “Map of Every European City”, by Itchy Feet (Source)

In the history of Anglo-Saxon England, apparently “the bit” is the mid to late eighth century.

Startling

The legacy of an awful history teacher (and my laziness in compensating), meant I learned some things that surprised me:

• After the Roman administration departed, Londinium was almost empty for nearly 200 years.

• The Bayeux tapestry is neither French (they commissioned English women), nor a tapestry (it’s embroidery). What most irks Mitchell is that the meaning of the word “tapestry” hasn’t evolved to include other items of embroidery, given it's the continent’s most famous item described as tapestry.

• The rules of succession were somewhat vague and flexible for long periods, and claimants used all sorts of arguments to seize the throne. Perhaps the most extraordinary was Henry I using porphyrogeniture. It means “born in the purple”, so that a son born after the father inherits has precedence over his older brothers. (Mitchell quotes Monty Python: “strange women lying in ponds”.)

• “Insistence on the legitimacy of birth didn’t fully kick in until the twelfth century.”

• The Domesday book records that in 1086, 10% of the population were slaves.

• Parliament was founded by a Frenchman (as most of the aristocracy were), Simon de Montfort, who Mitchell consistently refers to as SDM - except in the index.

• Castles were built and used for 300 years before arrow slits were invented.

• We talk about “The English Civil War”, as if there was only one, but however you define the term, it turns out, there were quite a few, plus, The Anarchy, which I’d never heard of.

• I hadn’t appreciated the scale of the Black Death (aka bubonic plague): over half the world’s population died in the space of a year:
“It’s probably the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity.”
That puts Covid, bad as it was, into perspective.


Image: Mitchell captions this “Henry I thinking sadly about the White Ship disaster. The expression on his face is the one tabloid photographers tell OAPs [seniors] to adopt to accompany articles about how they were tricked out of their life savings.”. (Early 14th-century depiction of Henry I and the sinking of the White Ship off Barfleur in Normandy in 1120, Source)


Quotes

Typical of Mitchell's style. If you're familiar with his radio or TV work, you'll read them in his voice. If you're not, consider getting the audiobook, read by him:

• “Gandalf is fictional. King Arthur is a lie.”

• “People found it much easier to believe in a rose-tinted view of the past than a utopian future. They still do: hence ‘Take Back Control’ and ‘Make America Great Again’.”

• “A big threat to our current civilization is the persistent post-Victorian assumption of progress.”

• “Violence is a constant, the religious views are just the accompanying spin.” And he includes the non-religious views of Communist autocracies.

• “In every possible way, other than the literal truth, they [Vikings] totally had horns on their helmets. Horned helmets was absolutely their vibe and I feel we all have a right to that deeper artistic truth.”

• “Slaughtering people… nowadays we’re really down on it, but they were really down with it (oh, the power of prepositions!).”

• “The fun thing for us about primogeniture is that the person who ends up as king can be hilariously unsuitable.”
• “William the Conqueror fathered his sons in reverse order of regal competence.”

• “Allowing good men to do nothing is the purpose of civilization.”

• Henry I was a good king because he was predictable. “It’s disappointing in a lover, but, in a feudal lord, it hits the spot.”

• “Castles are like the twelfth century’s asbestos. Seemed like such a great idea, got put in everywhere and then the lethal and resource-hungry consequences dragged on for decades.” It’s hard to force people out, so they become ungovernable.”

• “This [crusade] was the fashionable and righteous thing to be doing at the time - like going vegan is now, but with the opposite impact on the amount of blood that gets shed.”

• “In 2020, during the Covid pandemic, as part of the general internet-fuelled stupidity of our time, some lockdown refuseniks took to citing clause 61 of Magna Carta as a justification for ignoring lockdown rules… Clause 61… only gave twenty-five thirteenth-century barons the right to rebel against unjust laws… and it was… repudiated by all signatories and the pope within three months and never became law. So they were wrong twice… Of course, if two wrongs genuinely make a right, they have a point.”

• “John’s skull was kept by some monks in Dijon for reasons vaguely connected to Catholics being weird.”

• “This war [of the Roses] is reminiscent of the process of disentangling a very long string of Christmas lights. You sort out one bit and then there are just more twists, more tangles.”

• “His [Edward IV] major achievement was balancing the books, which he managed by various sensible economic measures such as not having a civil war and not trying to conquer France.”

What next?

This was published in 2023 and dedicated to his wife and daughter. They have since had another daughter, so I was thinking he might be planning another volume to dedicate to her. However, his closing thoughts make that seem unlikely, because he thinks monarchy fundamentally changed after Elizabeth I:
“An office accepted only because an unjust hierarchy is preferable to anarchy.”
And because Shakespeare has had more lasting impact than those subsequent monarchs.

“From King Arthur to William Shakespeare - a literary character to a literary genius… His brilliance makes them [kings] seem silly.”

Previously

Mitchell starred as the bard in the BBC historical sitcom, Upstart Crow, written by Ben Elton, which then became a West End stage play. I really enjoyed it: it seems a bit silly until you notice the many ways it cleverly satirises the plays.
See imdb and Wikipedia.

[Mark Porton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay - it is with some relief I have stopped listening to this one. Every time I took the pups for a walk, I looked at my podcasts, and also this audiobook (with some degree of dread and obligation to finish it).

Invariably, I'd choose a podcast.

Don't get me wrong David Mitchell is a very funny man, I like him. In this audiobook he rattles through each King from the beginning to Elizabeth I - and he really takes the piss out of them. Something, I love - being an antimonarchist. But it was too much funny!! Sounds stupid right?

Perhaps it's more amusing than 'laugh out loud Alan Partridge' hilarious. It's long and I got a bit tired of it. Besides, it impacted my valuable podcast time - which is hardly the book's fault at all really.

DNF at around 60% - but decent enough 3 Stars (3.5)

[Edward Gwynne · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brief but hilariously entertaining account of the monarchs of 'England' from the Early Medieval Period to the end of the Tudor's. Mitchell is a brilliant representation of what history can be - fun, engaging and full of quirky characters - he has a wonderful grasp on the history and puts it to the reader on a polished plate. Expect to laugh out loud a lot with this one!

[William Gwynne · Rating 5 out of 5]

BookTube channel with my awesome brother, Ed - The Brothers Gwynne
My personal BookTube channel - William Gwynne

In my opinion, this is a work of genius.

David Mitchell is a comedian, but also an incredibly intelligent lover of history. All those skills come together to form what is a highly entertaining and simultaneously informative read taking us through the history of the monarchs of England up to 1603.

This is fitting to those who just want to dip their fingers into a bit of history, as well as those who love any period that is covered. Mitchell draws parallels between rulers in history and sprinkles wonderful insights amongst his recounting of the main events of each monarch's rule.

"This is a projection, but I’m not a historian so I don’t need to pretend I haven’t chosen a side.
In fact I’d argue that all historians who say they haven’t chosen a side are more misleading in an insidious way, as they definitely have done even if they don’t know it."

Mitchell is no historian, and I love that he does not pretend to be. He is open about his preferences and his opinions, such as heavily supporting Harold Godwinson over William the Conqueror, and I loved how he did this!

Whilst the length means that Mitchell cannot go into the intricacies of his period, he makes sure to investigate in greater detail some very interesting elements in every period he covers. This is also brilliant if you are looking for your next obsession... as we are given a test for every point of time in England from the legend of Arthur all the way to the death of Elizabeth I.

PLEASE READ THIS

[Graham Power · Rating 2 out of 5]

The style of this history of English monarchy by comedian David Mitchell will be familiar to readers of his (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 kind 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.

[K.J. Charles]

Entertaining, written in a highly personal manner which I found endearing because I like David Mitchell. Don't think I learned anything very new but he's good at contextualising and it's funny and readable.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this jaunty ride through England's Kings and Queens. Mitchell has a lot of jokes and silly tangents. I also learned a lot. The only reason I can't rate this higher is because a lot of times I got lost, as it was hard for me to keep track of the constant stream of new people that were introduced. If I had more familiarity with English history (like "some" instead of "almost none") I would have liked this more.

The book ends at Queen Elizabeth. I was disappointed it ended there as I was looking forward to hearing Mitchell's takes on some Royal characters I have more familiarity with.

[Katie Lumsden · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really great read - entertaining and interesting.

[Ceecee · Rating 4 out of 5]

4+

Here the witty David Mitchell looks at our earliest Kings from Anglo-Saxon times including King Arthur although newsflash, he’s made up, sorry. He takes us through to the end of the Tudor era with Elizabeth I. It’s not a serious book as although the author has a history degree, he makes it clear he’s not an historian. However, what he does give us here is an entertaining ride! I lose count of the amount of times I burst out laughing as his take is always, well, a little different. He does sometimes take the circuitous route around the London orbital to get to Heathrow to make his points and you wonder where the dickens his thinking is going. For instance, he takes us on a ramble around Oxford when dealing with the Stephen and Mathilda but I could see what he was getting at.

He does take very strongly against some Kings. He loathes Edward the Confessor and King John maybe for more valid reasons. Of course, it’s chock full of his opinions as he doesn’t have to do the historians thing of justifying but it’s a blooming good fun read. It’s quirky as some humour is certainly left field, it’s sarcastic, ironic, intelligent, engaging and great fun. He does get a bit cross sometimes but even his rants are entertaining!!!

[Tim Null]

The problem with British history is that there's too damn much of it. And apparently, British history is organized according to who is the monarch. In the USA, we mainly organize history based on who we're trying to kill at any given moment, and since our killing periods tend to be quite lengthy, there's far less stuff to memorize.

Some weeks ago, I was reading some random review about something or other, and someone commented, "This might have been a decent book if David Mitchell had written it." Having no idea who David Mitchell was, I found that comment curious. So give me two and one-half hurrahs! I now know who David Mitchell is. ;-)

Personally, I'm torn between my Goodreads friends who love this book and those who don't, so I'm gonna try to maintain my neutrality, and I won't do a rating.

[Elle (ellexamines on TT & Substack) · Rating 4 out of 5]

The massive year 1066 - the most famous in English history and the inspiration for a million guessable PINs - is dominated by - NOT MINE! - is dominated by the brilliance and luck of William of Normandy.

Think liking extremely British humor is required for enjoying this. Luckily I apparently really do. This was my souvenir from The Globe, for some reason, and it was a great delight to spend a week reading about the history of English kings, from Athelflaed and the legends up through the end of the Tudor line with Elizabeth I. The section on ancient history is particularly strong; just some really excellent knowledge base from that. And I am much more acquainted with the Lancaster v York wars now.

And he's quite funny!
"...this included de Vere and de la Pole, but they had fled to France so escaped execution. This might have been exciting if they hadn't both died quite soon thanks to medieval Europe's narratively insensitive mortality rate."

TikTok | Substack | Instagram | Youtube | Spotify | About | 

[Theo Logos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Monarchy is what England has instead of a sense of identity.

In Unruly: The Ridiculous History of England’s Kings and Queens, comedian (definitely not historian, as he’s quick to remind you) David Mitchell delivers exactly what is marked on the tin — an uproariously fun and funny history of Englands kings and queens. It accentuates the ridiculousness of it all — the persons themselves, the notions conceived about kingship, and even the vagaries of fate.

Not being a proper historian, Mitchell roams free over the material. He freely uses naughty language where it seems appropriate. He picks sides based on his whims. (He’s for team Harold over team William in the big 1066 match.) Mitchell goes into long digressions about pop culture, current events, and his own personal experience, before implausibly steering back to the history and tying it in. He challenges stodgy and pompous historian conventions as being concerned with scoring points over minutia with other historians to the detriment of making the story interesting. And from the start, he makes his personal philosophy of history evident:

So this book may be about all the kings and queens who ruled England…but it’s not really about the past. It’s about history — history the school subject, the hobby, the atmosphere, the wonky drawings of kings, the sense of identity. History is a very contemporary thing.

There are two things to note about this funny and entertaining book. The first is that it is actually good history. I’ve covered most of this material in previous reading, from David Hume’s magisterial six volume History of England to the histories of Dan Jones, and Mitchell nails his history as solidly as the rest — just with a good deal more humor. (Though in fairness to Hume, his work did contain a fair bit of sly, sardonic humor as well.) The second is that Mitchell, behind all the entertainment, has a solid philosophical perspective on the material, a point of view behind it all. He sums this up at the end when explaining why he chose to end the book with the reign of Elizabeth I. After quoting brilliant lines from Shakespeare’s Richard II, he writes about the Bard:

He’s where this book has been heading, it turns out — from King Arthur to William Shakespeare, a literary character to a literary genius, from someone everyone wishes existed, to someone who some people, inexplicably, wish didn’t. Shakespeare is a good reason to stop writing about kings because his brilliance make them seem silly, and when they don’t seem silly it’s just because he has put words into their mouths that they could have never thought of themselves.

Despite all they hype and mystique surrounding them, the kings and queens were, ultimately, interchangeable. Had they not been there, someone else very like them would have been there to do something very similar. Shakespeare, he notes, was not. No one else could have written as he did when he did, and once we get to the point where the common folk can produce a Shakespeare, the age of the relevance of kings and queens is at an end.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unruly
“I don't know where the idea of Vikings having horns on their helmets came from, but it's a brilliant one. In every possible way, other than the literal truth, they totally had horns on their helmets. Horned helmets was absolutely their vibe and I feel we all have a right to that deeper artistic truth. They had limited technology and manufacturing helmets was pretty tricky for them, I imagine, so putting horns on them wouldn't have been workable, and wouldn't have increased the functionality of the helmets, but I swear they'd have given it a go if they'd thought of it.”
David Mitchell is a British comedian and raconteur, not to be confused with the author of the same name. This is a history of the English monarchy from earliest beginnings until the death od Elizabeth I in 1603. As you may guess it is not a conventional history, it’s more a combination of 1066 and all that, Monty Python and Horrible Histories. There’s lots of swearing, double entendres, sarcasm and wit. Taken as a whole it is clear that Mitchell is not a fan of monarchy. He provides a chapter on each monarch from Anglo Saxon times. There are introductory chapters on the times prior to this including Arthur:
“Gandalf is fictional. King Arthur is a lie.”
Mitchell also borrows an acerbic quote or two from the Pythons as well:
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.”
Mitchell is funny and does make some pertinent points. He also strays into the juvenile, especially with the wordplay on the two Kings named Cnut in the early eleventh century, as you can imagine. Also because of the repetitive nature of the subject the whole can become a little tedious at times. Admittedly it is a funny book about a serious subject.
It does what it says on the tin and there are lots of interesting facts and it is funny.
“The defeat of the Armada in 1588 was Elizabeth's high point. Things went downhill after that. Militarily the triumph against Spain was rather undermined the following year when Elizabeth sent her own massive Armada, commanded by Sir Francis Drake, to Spain and Portugal. This was annihilated too. So maybe God was neutral. Or Muslim.”
“People found it much easier to believe in a rose-tinted view of the past than a utopian future. They still do: hence ‘Take Back Control’ and ‘Make America Great Again’.”
If you know little English history and want to learn a bit about the rich and shameless in a humourous manner you may enjoy this.

[Bjorn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listening to this as an audio book works just the way you'd expect it to: It's David Mitchell giving a 10-hour angry rant about how shit most kings were back in the good old days. A well-read, informative, funny angry rant, but a rant nonetheless. With numerous asides, obviously. Basic takeaway, which should be obvious but somehow seems refreshing: You can be fascinated by these people, but admiring them, let alone thinking living under them had any advantages whatsoever to living now, is... a choice most people wouldn't make.

[Jeanette · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am past William the Conqueror and am SO enjoying David Mitchell's humor. Some of the best analogy, conceptual comparisons I have ever read. Plus laugh out loud actually at least 6 times so far.

5 plus stars for his "homo sapiens" observations peppered throughout the entire print copy. Might has always made right. As long as groups of humans are standing or mobile- it will continue being so.

After finishing this SUPERB read:

Gush, laugh, gush, laugh- all the way from Arthur to Gloriana (Elizabeth I).

Despising reviews that use hyperbole and the types of "best ever in my life" and "no more stunning could exist" language- let me say. THIS IS a FABULOUS read. Mitchell is NOT an historian. He is brilliant, knowing, and entirely English.

The sense of humor is beyond 5 stars. He crosses millennia of analogy, crosscut popular mores, and the culture of the eras to a sublime level for people of the 21st century understanding the nuance of a 14th century corner whisper. Or the "current" standard of being "rich" or "clean". Or healthy?

Others have said it better. Especially those citizens of the UK NOW, like Cecily, who review this in detail. As an American of more than average history education and/or interest in the English language itself- I find STILL- there are parts of this I had two or three read speeds to grasp whole context understanding.

Fortunately I had just watched a 7 or 9 hour "Hollow Crown" history of primarily Shakespeare's three plays ending with Richard III (War of the Roses core the other two)- just 2 weeks before I read this book. STILL- parts of it and some hiccup lengths of these reigns?

The more you know era and alliances- the more history of England AS England you have sorted upstairs- the better you will get the brilliance in this mighty tome.

So if you could never get your Matilda's straight or which Edward or Henry went where- take a gander.

[Boudewijn · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Mitchell's Unruly is a blend of humor and historical analysis which privides a fresh take on the history of the English monarchs. Mitchell succeeds in making complex historical information accesible, while Mitchell's narative style makes sure that the reader is both informed and entertained. History doesn't have to be dull and boring, it can be engaging and entertaining and can (re)kindle the fascination of the readers. I really liked it.

[Lois · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh
This was mostly unnecessary, not that funny, pro-monarchy for the most part and tad bit sexist.
🤷🏾‍♀️
This does cover the French Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War that dominated the 100 years war in France much like the war of the roses dominated England at this same time period.
A surprising amount of histories of this time period skipped this war while covering the 100 years war, and its annoying.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. It was a joy to read. It’s clever and funny. It is highly informative. I loved Mitchell’s sense of humor and his sarcasm. I loved his personal opinions and commentary. The historical context is excellent. What a great way to learn history. Thank you to Netgalley and Crown for the advance reader copy.

[Tanja Berg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fun and irreverent, delightful and short, history of the kings and queens of England. From the beginning, via the imaginary Arthur, and ending with Elizabeth the first, well, James the first gets a quick mention before the closing of the book. It’s rather a parade of quixotic, narcissistic and nasty royals. I did learn one thing - Queen Mary I and Mary queen of the Scots is not the same person. It feels like I should have known this, but really, I was surprised. The author has a lot to say about more modern occurrences and this was great fun. Not that I will remember much. There were just too many!

[Algernon (Darth Anyan) · Rating 4 out of 5]

They were brilliant! Unless you met them personally, in which case they were awful. Bit like Peter Sellers.

The quote is not really about the kings and queens of England. It’s about Vikings, who according to David Mitchell didn’t even wear horns on their helmets, more the pity. I like it because for me it captures the style of the presentation in a very compact way: informative, fun and more than a bit irreverent. Why spend the effort to write it then, and for us to read it? For those born in England, it might answer the fundamental question of national identity. For somebody like me, with a keen interest in world history, it is a compact, well argued and entertaining summary of characters that appear frequently on my reading list.

Monarchy is what England has instead of a sense of identity – the very continuity of English government – the rule of kings morphing into the flawed parliamentary democracy of today – has resulted in our sense of nationhood, patriotism and even culture getting entwined with an institution that, practically speaking, now does little more than provide figureheads.

Let’s start with a basic question: Where do kings come from and what are they made of?

In my head, I hear the voice of Philomena Cunk as I write this, which is misleading, because there’s nothing dim-witted or ill-informed about Mitchell’s history. He is more closely related to Stephen Fry, who gets a nod and a name drop in the text, than to the Cunk style. Mitchell may have a background in comedy shows, but he also has a lifelong passion for history and an almost uncanny talent for explaining without dumbing down the underlying trends and the context in which these rulers played out their reigns. Mitchell is also very good at linking the past with the present time. His history is alive and meaningful to our contemporary lives and events and his funny side is understated and relegated more to the language he uses and his general attitude of irreverence for the so-called ‘sacred’ nature of the institution in question.

Some people love to fight and steal and dominate – that’s the key. There are arseholes among us and, given half a chance, they’re going to start some sort of trouble out of ruthless self-interest or bloodlust or both. The prevailing ethos of any surrounding society is almost always that you’re not supposed to kill people without a good reason, or at least some sort of reason. But the arseholes are clever, so they come up with reasons. To deeply religious societies, religious differences sound like a very convincing reason for killing people. But that doesn’t mean the killing wouldn’t have happened anyway.

Here’s another example to illustrate the author’s general approach to his main subject:

History is dominated by big themes and trends: capitalism, nationalism, colonialism, industrialization, communism, sexism, racism, Christianity, Islam. Enormous things that rise and fall like tides – that’s what affects our lives. That’s why the USA has so many nuclear weapons and China manufactures so many objects. That’s why we all have mobile phones and there’s too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is all caused by themes, not by a single human’s personal drive and whether their toast falls butter side up.

or, In between those little wars, there was a period of competent government, which is boring so I won’t dwell on it.

We will dwell instead on the idea of ‘divine’ right to rule. How was it born? Where does it lead? [hint, hint: wars]

Giving a comprehensive answer in my review is counterproductive and, anyway, Mitchell does a much better job that I ever could.
He starts with King Arthur, who is of course fictional: a legend, a myth that was useful in the middle ages to give a varnish of glamour and legitimacy to the institution. For Mitchell, starting with the Saxon rulers who came over the sea and conquered the Celts and the other tribes left over after the Roman retreat, the first kings were simply mob bosses, thugs who ruled their territory by brute force. When Christianity started to make inroads into the local population, these rulers saw a chance to legitimize their dominion through the trapping of the Oriental despots, mainly by way of Constantinople and the Pope in Rome.

Rulers’ status was all about power deriving from violence, combined with a growing sense that a bit of regal showiness helped keep inferiors in their place and intimidate rival kings.

also, England’s most pukka lineage is a descent from thieving thugs.

The lineage referenced here is that of William the Conqueror, who basically came over the Channel and stole the country from its rightful owners. The three lions from his family escutcheon are still a big thing in English heraldry, even centuries after the direct line of succession was cut short. Richard the Lionheart in particular seems to inspire the author’s ire through his fabricated heroic image.

He’s basically calling himself England McEnglishface. Then, when we find out that (along with England’s entire ruling class at the time) he didn’t even speak English and he spent only six months of his reign in England, almost all of it feverishly extorting as much cash as he could to spend on foreign military exploits, we feel a bit let down.

also, Lions are not really noble beasts. They are not proud. They do not have principles and they don’t stand up for the weaker people and defend island races. They don’t like England – they find it too cold and rainy. The lion is a ruthless predator who deploys awesome violence in its own interests.

I believe I’m jumping the timeline with my observations. Before Richard, there are some very good notes in the book about why castles are similar to asbestos [hint, hint : they make the local barons too powerful to control], why some names for kings are more popular than others and why, ultimately, Having kings is an awful system. [hint, hint: you get a bad apple and you are basically stuck with it]. Here’s how Mitchell introduces his themes:

Castles are like the twelfth century’s asbestos. Seemed like a such a great idea, got put in everywhere and then the lethal and resource-hungry consequences dragged on for decades.

Matilda may be a common name for a queen at this time, but Stephen is an unusual one for a king and, to a great extent, that’s thanks to this Stephen. He’s so badly thought of that no one would touch that regnal name with a sterilized sceptre thereafter. For a king’s name to catch on, you need one or two successful ones to get it going. There are quite a few Williams and Henries, but only one Stephen and one John.

Matilda is seen as an exceptional personality for her time, a powerful woman in a world completely dominated by men. Before Mary and Elizabeth were even considered as legitimate heirs to the throne, Matilda carved her way to the top at sword point. So many centuries later, strong women are still viewed with suspicion and even terror by their male counterparts.

A woman in a man’s world – robbed of her rights, accused by contemporaries both of lacking the traditionally male strengths to rule and of being unnatural and unfeminine whenever she displayed those strengths.

Speaking of John, he is correctly identified as a key point in shifting the common view on the whole kingship institution, a catalyst for that other defining thingy of national pride.

So poor was the management he provided that it famously spurred the English aristocracy into unionizing. That’s what led to Magna Carta.

because: ... the notion that these kingdoms and dukedoms were merely a powerful man’s personal property was very strong. This is the very interpretation of kingship that the barons who drafted Magna Carta were trying to get away from.

Magna Carta itself, like other sacred parts of national heritage, isn’t as cut and dry as some school manuals are trying to make it. Or as some fringe people are trying to appropriate for their own agendas [see details inside]

In 2020, during the Covid pandemic, as part of the general internet-fuelled stupidity of our time, some lockdown refuseniks took to citing clause 61 of Magna Carta as a justification for ignoring lockdown rules. Their reasoning was that the clause made it legal to rebel against government that the people considered unjust. I’m quite fond of this sort of bullshit – a little learning can be a hilarious thing, and the same goes for a little googling.

As a side note, touched here in relation to Edward’s 1290 edict banishing all Jews from the kingdom, I was impressed by the way Mitchell goes right to the core of the Western dislike for this minority, a deep-routed anti-semitism that is manifest in most European cultures and endures to this day [hint, hint: it has more to do with the economy than with religion]

Jewish people, who unlike Christians were not prohibited by their religion from charging interest on loans, provided a useful financial service. But many who had availed themselves of this facility, as the enjoying of the lovely loan money morphed into the making of the horrible repayments, saw the light in terms of how terrible it was that not everyone in England was Christian.

Another source of fratricidal killings is the schism in Christianity between Catholics, Protestants and Henry the VIII’s brand of self-serving Anglicanism. Mary of the Scots is the hardest hit ruler of this blood drenched period.

... she was bitterly aware that this would alienate the Catholics. Unfortunately it was a binary issue. There was no compromise third position that wouldn’t have had both sides calling her a heretic. Centrism was even more intellectually unrespectable than it is now.

Finally, a lengthy account of the Wars of the Roses explain why the concept of divine rule and of sacred blood suffered a fatal blow in the rush of several opportunistic second tier candidates to make a grab at supreme power in the land.

As soon as the principle of a line of succession is gone, and kingship is discussed in Henry Tudorish terms of having a bit of royal blood, then the concept of royalty starts to become meaningless. Kings are reduced to what they started out as: dictators. People don’t think the kings are legitimate and the kings don’t feel legitimate themselves.

Unfortunately for me, this point in time is the one David Mitchell has chosen as the terminus station for his book. I can’t argue with his theory, but I was really getting in the groove with his particular style and wanted to keep going until the modern era. He does offers us a compensation of sorts by pointing out to the rise of the meritocracy: people that should be remembered by posterity for their deeds, not for who their father or grandfather was.

Shakespeare is a good reason to stop writing about kings because his brilliance makes them seem silly. And when they don’t seem silly, it’s just because he has put words into their mouths that they could never have thought of themselves.

In conclusion: a great trip, I would even say a joyride of well documented and well organized information that makes up in clever puns what it may lack in respect for its subject. As a democrat who would like to see the whole concept of kings and divine rule consigned to the trash bins of history, I thoroughly approve of the message.

1603: The great era of English kingship is over.
They were not amazing people. Neither, really, were the supposedly great rulers of this time. They were capable, but they were also brutal, flawed and fundamentally limited.

[M. Chéwl · Rating 3 out of 5]

‘Unruly’ by comedian David Mitchell is a sort of Horrible Histories for adults; a facetious, chronological overview of England’s monarchs, retold in Mitchell’s matter-of-fact brand of sardonic humour. It begins with the apocryphal King Arthur in the epoch of post-Roman Britain, and navigates swiftly through the Anglo-Saxon/Viking era up until the 11th century, detailing the salient events of Alfred the Great, Aethelred the Unready, Cnut (the name of whom Mitchell indulges in some obvious schoolboy ribaldry), Edward the Confessor, then finally, Harold Godwinson; the last Anglo-Saxon king, defeated at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, his death by an arrow to the eye forever immortalised in The Bayeux Tapestry.

Notwithstanding the coarse humour (which is superfluous at times), Unruly is generally well-written and informative; useful for anyone with a tenuous grasp on British history looking to brush up on the fundamentals. I found it interesting to learn that it was the father of King Henry II, Geoffrey, Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy, where we derive the name Plantagenet from because he wore a sprig in his hat. Moreover, that Simon De Montfort founded the English parliamentary system, and that Queen “Bloody” Mary had 300 Protestants burned alive at the stake - who says women can’t be murderous tyrants?

The bulk of the text focuses on the Plantagenet dynasty, which is undoubtedly where the book excels. The machinations of obscure kings like Stephen, Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI were enjoyable to read; Mitchell paints a vivid portrait of these especially deranged monarchs. Spoiler alert: they’re all, without exception, mentally unhinged sanctimonious pricks.

Why 3-stars? Well, I might have given it 4 were it not for Mitchell’s insufferable sociopolitical commentary, which frankly, considering this would have been written and published in the last year, is reprehensible. I’m not going to go into depth, but he starts by equating anyone who didn’t want to take the government mandated gene-therapy back in 2021 to the primitive Romano-British Neanderthals who preferred to flee the sophistications of Londinium to instead live in hovels in the recesses of Wales. Nice one David. Wonder if he’s been living in a cupboard for the last couple of years and has not heard about the excess mortality and ubiquitous health complications caused as a result of Big Pharma’s panacea…

He doesn’t stop there, in fact throughout the entire book Mitchell takes every opportunity to disparage those who expressed scepticism and reluctance to acquiesce to government totalitarianism as crazy “lockdown refuseniks”; he uses this term when deriding those who quoted the tenets of the Magna Carta at the time to authorities as they desperately tried to preserve their freedoms. Yes David, how terribly cretinous of them!

Remarks of this kind are made worse by the fact that you know this is his genuine opinion, and it leaves a bitter aftertaste. Therefore, weighing up the merit of the book on an objective basis, and purely in terms of the historical content, it is quite engaging and educational overall. Ironically, however, the author unwittingly reveals aspects of his own character which serve to render him as every bit the sanctimonious prick as the kings and queens he covers in his book.

[India M. Clamp · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unruly: A History of England's Kings and Queens could be retitled as "The Horrible History." Some marriages were arranged between two year olds and babies at the command of St. Thomas Becket. In this raw bloody account, history moves slowly forward like a creaky wooden wagon wheel on a rocky road; as one thing happens after another. As such is the history of England. "Pulvis et umbra sumus."

"The prevailing ethos of any surrounding society is almost always that you’re not supposed to kill people without good reason, or at least some reason. "
---David Mitchell

Expletives are not in short supply in this reading and Mitchell contends about the monarchy: “...is an awful system.” Monarchy swings opens its warm welcome doors to admit royals who endeavor (with pride) to impart misery to their subjects in ways familiar to some for profit institutions.
Here with swearing for emphasis, to somehow justify vain take overs by familial on family (that is now considered a crime) with a big dollop of sociopathic actions. Written similar to "Der Standard."

[Stacey · Rating 1 out of 5]

I barely made it through the introduction and stumbled through the first chapter. It felt like I was being preached at and scolded the whole time, which is disappointing, as I quite like the author.
I'm not in the mood for misogynistic humour, either. Maybe one day I'll give it another go, but life is too short to finish bad books.

[Eliza · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is David Mitchells "first history book." I sincerely hope it's his last.

[Paul (Life In The Slow Lane) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I fart in your general direction.

David gives us a history of the rulers of "England" from the "mists of time," through the Dark Ages, (Oops! That's punishable by the Thought Police. Let's call them the Light-Impaired Ages) through to Elizabethan times. Many LOL moments along the way and lots of big words I had to look up.

Some of the early English rulers and their kin had some hilarious names:
Aethelred The Unready (whose picture shows him lifting his leg to enable a fart while scratching his balls. Don't believe me? Look it up.)
Sven Forkbeard
King Cnut
HalfaCnut
Aelfifoo
Aethelstan
Aethelfred
Harold Hairfoot

It seems that, in The World According To David Mitchell, English history stops at Shakespeare (read QE1), because she was the last English Monarch with true power. I wished he'd gone on with a second book taking us up to Queen Victoria. After her the monarchy was/is as boring as watching cow crap dry. I feel he didn't really give Lizzy the First a fair treatment. She was one of my historical heroines. She knew how to kick arse, but carefully. She wore awesome neck ruffles too. I don't know how she munched on a haunch of venison without dripping shit all over it. Maybe that's why she wore it...a mudguard for the rest of her expensive clothing. She was the last Monarch with true style, unless you count Victoria with her mournful black or QE2 with her polka dot hats and stupid corgis. I wonder if QE1 had pets?

Anyway, David's writing style is notable in it's humour, thoroughness and numerous deviations with modern comparisons sprinkled here and there. I loved it. AND, my next cat is definitely going to be called Aelfifoo. 🙀