I assume that it is common in former British colonies like the United States to have a fairly tilted view of things. After all, the Brits and French have been trying to out-snob each other since at least 1066. Nevertheless, until recently, I was unaware of the extent of this tacit anglophilia.

Cobbett's book is a key step in reconstructing an alternate history of the rise of British dominance. It is certainly worth note that his predictions of doom & gloom for Britain did not bear out, and the seeds of the industrial revolution that he deplored as a result of Protestant reformation were to eventually lead to a depth of world prosperity that puts his recitations of the daily diet of the yoeman to shame.

While keeping in mind that this is a work of propaganda, it should be simultaneously borne in mind that this is really a work of counterpropaganda. I don't really buy the "Cobbett was a Protestant" argument, as his vitriol is a little thick for a sustaining member of that segment. Nevertheless, the viewpoint he brings is worthy of note in that it is seldom heard with respect to the truisms of English History.

I would like to see a historical refutation (note that I refuse to say "an historical refutation", because I pronounce my "h's"). Cobbett certainly argues for the veracity of his own data.

This book will anger you or amuse you, alternatively. It's a nice study in how grudges get carried on for centuries. It's also a nice example of how time can accomplish great things, transforming Elizabeth into a movie star and Philip II into a historical nonentity.

Well worth the read, if slightly high-spirited.

I enjoyed Cobbett's "History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland" immensely. It truly was an eye-opener regarding the commonly held notions of this period in British history.

Reading this book, I learned --- among many other surprising things --- that "Bloody Mary" was not really so bloody, that "Good Queen Bess" was not really so good, that the "Glorious Revolution" was not all that glorious, and that maybe England might have been better off had King Henry VIII controlled his passion and greed and left things as he had found them.

If nothing else Cobbett's book provides a fascinating alternative viewpoint to what we learned in school. (And he is not afraid to cite his sources in footnotes so readers may check his accuracy.)

Preface, by Francis Cardinal Gasquet. This famous and highly respected work will be an eye-opening education for the person accustomed to the bland, factless, churchless, accepted "history" found in so many books today. It is a tragic depiction of the loss of millions upon millions of souls to the Catholic Faith, but very worth reading for getting the entire story straight - and all by a Protestant writer. This was written between 1824 and 1827 and has been reprinted many times by Catholic publishers because it gives the true and usually untold story of the Protestant Revolt in England during the 16th century. Even though a Protestant, the author shows that England was better when it was Catholic. For example, during Catholic times there was greater prosperity, no penury, no poor laws, almost no crime, no income tax, and a greater national military strength. Whereas, with the "Reformation" came the destruction of the monasteries, the driving of countless thousands of tenant farmers from the lands they had formerly rented (virtually in perpetuity and at cheap rents) from the Catholic monasteries, the creation of a vast number of homeless poor, the subsequent poor laws, income tax, a diminished military capacity, despotism by the monarchs, the Puritan Revolt, dictatorship of Cromwell, an increase of taxation, the rise of the national debt, and finally the American Revolution. Wow! Great stuff!