Some topics are inherently interesting. Until you start studying them.

That description perhaps applies to the constitutional history of England. English governance evolved greatly over time, from strong local control in Saxon times to extreme feudalism under the Normans to "bastard feudalism" under the Plantagenets to pure autocracy under the Tudors to the gradual democritization under the Stuarts and those who came after.

And yet, this book made it seem quite dry. The tussles between Edward I and his parliaments? All we get are the results, not the politics. The wars between Edward II and his barons are downplayed, because they had no lasting effects. The Lancastrian dynasty might almost not have existed. As I think about it, the basic problem in this constitutional history is "too much constitution, not enough history."

If you're an actual lawyer looking at the evolution of law, I would imagine this volume is spectacularly useful. But if you want to read about the way the changes came about, this isn't your book. ( )