An interesting book review

Review of John Ashdown-Hill's latest work

Not The White Queen

I suppose I am missing an opportunity for not posting more now that The White Queen is so much in the public eye, and the Yorkist era has become quite topical. However, I do not have the patience to go through a long digression on the factual and historic errors of the TV production - besides, it has already been discussed thoroughly elsewhere.

It may be said by some that at least this new production will introduce more people to the Yorkist era. Well, there may be some truth in that, if you suppose that Braveheart created more interest in Edward II and Robert the Bruce. Sadly, I am reliably informed that all too many people still live under the impression that Edward III was fathered by Wallace. While this is quite amusing - if you are the sort of person who finds ignorance amusing - it does suggest that the dreadful film has not much advanced people's understanding of the era. So will it be, I suspect, with the Yorkist era. There are already enough misapprehensions around - held, for example, by those who suppose More's work on Richard III is a sort of Holy Writ - without creating more.

Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville

An evil fairy almost made me include 'supposed', 'bigamous' or 'purported' in that title. After all, in a world where at least one author has put Richard III in inverted commas, I feel one is entitled to be equally catty. But I shall rise above it, and wait for an opportunity to write 'Henry IV' or 'Henry VII' when describing the said personages,

As Susan Higginbotham has pointed out there can be no absolute certainty that the traditional date for the wedding 1st May 1464 is in fact the correct one. The facts Susan produces indicate that at the least Edward was playing his cards so close to his chest that not even William Hastings knew the full SP. And if William Hastings, as Lord Chamberlain and supposed best buddy was kept out of the loop, who was left in it?

Given that medieval kings and queens lived their lives literally surrounded by attendants, it almost beggars belief that Edward was able to slip away long enough to court, win and marry Elizabeth without anyone knowing. (If he did indeed manage this feat, it demonstrates that he could have done the same with someone else, doesn't it? And we wonder about lack of proof?)

Now, of course, attendants on royal personages learn to be discreet, especially when the royal personage concerned is a young sovereign 'taking his leisure' with one lady or another. That almost goes without saying. But if Hastings really did not know, then discretion was really taken to extremes in this case. To an almost mind-boggling degree.

One possibility is that Hastings was not at court at the relevant time. Although as King's Chamberlain he was expected to hang around Edward most of the time, he naturally had his own private affairs to attend to (and indeed duties connected with his other offices), and there was a deputy to take his place when he was absent. This is something that detailed research as to Hastings whereabouts (compared to those of Edward IV) might bear dividends. But one of Hastings' key qualities was what we now call 'people-skills'. He was well-liked, and well-connected to all manner of influential people. It would be astounding if one or other of his underlings at court had not informed him of such an important development as the King's marriage.

So, on the face of it, Edward married Elizabeth and no one at court knew. It was that tight a secret. Or if someone did know, that person kept his mouth firmly shut, out of fear or loyalty.

Richard of Conisbrough, Earl of Cambridge

I have noticed that the Wiki Page for young Richard has been expanded considerably and now includes reference to his possible illegitimacy. It even provides us with an image of him, and to be honest I don't recall having seen it before, though I may have done somewhere.

What the article fails to mention is the seminal work of T.B. Pugh in Henry V and The Southampton Plot, which is unfortunate because I am 95% certain that Pugh was the first reputable historian to draw attention to the matter and suggest Richard was not born until 1385, or thereabouts. It also fails to mention that Shirley, the 15th century collector of poems and servant of various nobles, the man who first linked this supposed affair to Chaucer's poem, had known links to Isabel Countess of Essex (Cambridge's daughter) and Isabelle, Countess of Warwick (Cambridge's niece.) These ladies were in a position to know their family gossip - whether they shared it with Shirley and told him it was 100% kosher we shall never know.

Frankly I should prefer to think that Edward IV and Richard III were descendants of Edmund of Langley - but we can at least be reasonably sure that they were descended from Lionel of Clarence, which is the key thing from the point of view of the succession.

Progress on This Blog

One or two people have enquired about progress on this Blog.

The very limited appetite I have currently for writing and historical research is being focused on the Alianore Audley II book. I also have very little spare time because of family responsibilities.

If anyone wants to write a guest article they have only to offer. Otherwise it will have to be a wait until the right planets align.

Maybe it's me, but...

The discovery of Richard's body (if it is him) seems also to have dug up all the old, fruitless arguments between his 'supporters' and his 'detractors' - for want of better labels. Maybe it's because I'm so long in the game, but the exercise seems increasingly pointless. For every argument there is a counter-argument, and neither side is going to change its collective mind. I can think of parallels, but I've no wish to be offensive so I'll spare you the comparison. I just get weary of reading the same old stuff on every Ricardian and Wars of the Roses Forum I've subscribed to. Because of this, I've pretty much given up joining in.

Richard III - Found?

Well, we have to wait for the DNA tests for conclusive proof, but I doubt whether the comments made at the Press Conference would have gone so far if there was very much room to doubt that it is him.

I have no doubt that this will spark a whole new wave of interest in Richard III, and doubtless a whole catalogue of new books, both fact and fiction, from both the Richard-haters and the Richard-defenders.

Some people have gone so far as to suggest a state funeral. I think this would be OTT and plain wrong. For one thing, the country is broke. Far too much money has already been spent this year on fripperies at a time when essential services are being cut.

For another, at a state funeral all the best places would go to so-called VIPs. I suspect the number of 'VIPs' who care a fig for Richard can be counted on the fingers of one severely war-damaged hand. No, the occasion should be for his friends and supporters, not least the members of the Richard III Society and the other societies with an interest. For the people who actually care.

On historical matters, let me mention that for many years it was established 'tradition' that Richard's bones had been thrown into the River Soar. That is now almost certainly proved to be bunkum. In addition, despite at least one ignorant newspaper report to the contrary, it seems he was not a hunchback. (Many of us us suspected so all along, but the legend persisted.) The point is folks - there are other 'traditions' that may in time be proved to be a load of old tripe.