Charles II was born in 1630 to Henrietta Maria of France and Charles I. Charles II had a childhood marred by the First English Civil War, in which his father ultimately surrendered. During the Second English Civil War, Charles II found himself on the move again, and with an executed father. Charles II began his reign in 1660, and was coronated in 1661. His ascension to the throne led to the Anglo-Scottish War. He was also the reigning monarch during both the Great Plague of London and the Great Fire of London, which I was not aware of before reading this. Or if I was aware of it, I forgot about it. Charles married Catherine of Braganza in 1662. He was notoriously unfaithful, having several mistresses and illegitimate children, while having no legitimate children with his wife. Charles II was involved in a lot of things, including plenty of disputes with Parliament over various things. He was also interested in science, which a lot of people found wildly inappropriate. As a matter of fact, some modern historians believe that his death was related to mercury poisoning which he had been handling/exposed to just prior to his death. Of course, other people believe he was deliberately poisoned since he wasn't super well thought of by a lot of people. This book contained such a detailed representation of his life and activities, I actually used this as a reference in a paper I had to write.

I got this book at the used bookstore for a dollar, and apparently this edition is out of print. That was a nice find for me, as it sells for considerably more on Amazon. We all know that I genuinely enjoy Antonia Fraser and her work, but I do like to be fair in my reviews. I am rating this book highly due to the content, research, and writing style that I enjoy, despite some small issues. Here is the thing, I have read SEVERAL reviews that drag this book and Antonia Fraser for writing a biased book. Her research, as always, was terrifically done. I can see that she did want to portray Charles II in a more favorable light by focusing on the better things that he did and experienced. I know that I saw one review, specifically, going on about how she didn't trash talk him for having a bunch of illegitimate children and not being able to keep his weenie in his pantaloons. It is RARE for a monarch to be monogamous and not have at least one mistress and illegitimate child, as we see time and again in historical biographies. I'm failing to see why this was such a shock or why someone should write an entire book based on his indiscretions without mentioning any important events that he was associated with. I do think it could have used a bit more focus on some of the negative things, but it wasn't overly biased in my opinion. We all know that historical figures are human beings, thus are imperfect and often get up to shenanagins. Him cheating on his wife and having a bunch of kids with other women is not the worst thing he did and I am not sure why that is the hyperfocus instead of some of the policies he supported. Come on, now.

As an aside, I cannot stand the current King Charles III, however, I am not sure I would have taken on Charles III as my kingly name after all the bad history associated with it. Perhaps he can keep himself from facing an execution or possibly mercury poisoning like his similarly named cohorts...