For anyone interested my new kindle 'book' The Open Fetterlock is now available from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, and indeed Amazon.de for those who would prefer to pay in Euros.
There isn't a single complete story in here. It amounts to a collection from my 'cutting-room floor', which is why it's so cheap. Short sections from four incomplete novels (including two Ricardian ones and one light-hearted 'Yorkist' one). I hope some of you will enjoy it, and it will at least prove I have done slightly more than zip these last five years.
I am going to try to put it on Smashwords too, so those of you who haven't got a kindle can buy one of the other e-versions. PDF, for example. This is most unlikely ever to be a real book, unless I get really famous and people start bringing out anthologies and stuff. I don't flatter myself.
The Richard III Society have asked me for an Alianore short story and I am working on that right now. After the reception the last lot of fiction got in their letters page I'm surprised that they want it. Still I shall do my best, even though it's a bit like being asked to do stand-up at the Glasgow Empire.
I have also turned my thoughts to This New Spring of Time the Richard II/Anne of Bohemia novel. Don't be surprised if that ends being next up.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Edward and Elizabeth
Not a post as such, but a link to an interesting article by Eric Ives.
It's a pity that Ives doesn't quote his sources as his conclusions as to the nature of the initial relationship between Edward and Elizabeth are intriguing.
It's a pity that Ives doesn't quote his sources as his conclusions as to the nature of the initial relationship between Edward and Elizabeth are intriguing.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot
For those of you who wish to know more about Eleanor Talbot, I strongly recommend Eleanor, The Secret Queen by John Ashdown-Hill. Even if you disagree with Dr. Ashdown-Hill's conclusions - and if you are sceptical about Richard III you will feel obliged to - there is nothing wrong with the factual content of the book, which gathers together everything that can be known about this lady.
Instead of trying to give you a digest of this text, I shall give you the key points of my conclusions on Eleanor, following my study of this book.
1. She was quite definitely the daughter of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, which (incredibly) has been doubted by some historians. Talbot's name is little known these days, but at the time he was a hero, roughly equivalent to Churchill or at least Field Marshal Montgomery.
2. It is wrong, therefore, to think of Eleanor as 'obscure'. Although her own marriage to Sir Thomas Butler of Sudeley was a modest one, her father was a leading nobleman and her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk. (The same Duchess of Norfolk who served as Principal Lady-in-Waiting at Margaret of York's wedding and was the mother of Anne Mowbray.)
3. Eleanor's mother was a Beauchamp - Margaret, eldest daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. A lady of very high rank by birth, if this needs to be said, half-sister to Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick. Which makes the 'Kingmaker' Eleanor's uncle. (Perhaps fortunately for Edward IV the family quarrel between the Beauchamp sisters meant this connection was not emphasised.)
4. Another Beauchamp sister, Eleanor, married the Somerset killed at St. Albans. So, Henry Duke of Somerset and his brothers were Eleanor's first cousins.
Of course it is impossible for Ashdown-Hill, or anyone else to prove that Eleanor's alleged secret marriage to Edward IV took place. By the nature of such marriages no evidence can be extant, the witnesses being long dead. Then again, we have almost as much evidence for the ceremony as we have for that between Edward and Elizabeth W. It's really Edward's acknowledgement of the latter ceremony that makes the difference. The event itself was equally irregular.
Edward was evidently attracted to women some years older than himself and preferably widows - Eleanor, Elizabeth, 'Jane' Shore and Elizabeth Waite/Lucy all seem to fit the template.
However, let's forget personal attractions for a minute. Could there have been a political reason for Edward to marry Eleanor? Possibly, just possibly. Edward was keen to conciliate Somerset (an issue to which I shall return in due course) and in that context his marriage to Somerset's cousin might have been seen as a white rose/red rose union. With the added bonus of bringing the powerful Talbot family on board into the bargain. Given that Warwick and Montagu were very annoyed by Edward's pardon of Somerset, it would be in line with Edward's trouble-avoidance philosophy to keep the matter temporarily secret. And then when Somerset defected to the other side again, it would give a reason for an angry Edward to dump Eleanor and turn to the gorgeous Elizabeth.
It's a fascinating subject for speculation, but it can't be proved. What Ashdown-Hill has proved is that Eleanor had land which a) she did not inherit b) she did not hold by dower or jointure c) which she could not afford to buy. This land was almost certainly granted to her by Edward; and since Edward did not go around granting lands to random females, there is something there that cannot easily be explained away.
Anyway, read the book, see what you think.
Instead of trying to give you a digest of this text, I shall give you the key points of my conclusions on Eleanor, following my study of this book.
1. She was quite definitely the daughter of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, which (incredibly) has been doubted by some historians. Talbot's name is little known these days, but at the time he was a hero, roughly equivalent to Churchill or at least Field Marshal Montgomery.
2. It is wrong, therefore, to think of Eleanor as 'obscure'. Although her own marriage to Sir Thomas Butler of Sudeley was a modest one, her father was a leading nobleman and her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk. (The same Duchess of Norfolk who served as Principal Lady-in-Waiting at Margaret of York's wedding and was the mother of Anne Mowbray.)
3. Eleanor's mother was a Beauchamp - Margaret, eldest daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. A lady of very high rank by birth, if this needs to be said, half-sister to Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick. Which makes the 'Kingmaker' Eleanor's uncle. (Perhaps fortunately for Edward IV the family quarrel between the Beauchamp sisters meant this connection was not emphasised.)
4. Another Beauchamp sister, Eleanor, married the Somerset killed at St. Albans. So, Henry Duke of Somerset and his brothers were Eleanor's first cousins.
Of course it is impossible for Ashdown-Hill, or anyone else to prove that Eleanor's alleged secret marriage to Edward IV took place. By the nature of such marriages no evidence can be extant, the witnesses being long dead. Then again, we have almost as much evidence for the ceremony as we have for that between Edward and Elizabeth W. It's really Edward's acknowledgement of the latter ceremony that makes the difference. The event itself was equally irregular.
Edward was evidently attracted to women some years older than himself and preferably widows - Eleanor, Elizabeth, 'Jane' Shore and Elizabeth Waite/Lucy all seem to fit the template.
However, let's forget personal attractions for a minute. Could there have been a political reason for Edward to marry Eleanor? Possibly, just possibly. Edward was keen to conciliate Somerset (an issue to which I shall return in due course) and in that context his marriage to Somerset's cousin might have been seen as a white rose/red rose union. With the added bonus of bringing the powerful Talbot family on board into the bargain. Given that Warwick and Montagu were very annoyed by Edward's pardon of Somerset, it would be in line with Edward's trouble-avoidance philosophy to keep the matter temporarily secret. And then when Somerset defected to the other side again, it would give a reason for an angry Edward to dump Eleanor and turn to the gorgeous Elizabeth.
It's a fascinating subject for speculation, but it can't be proved. What Ashdown-Hill has proved is that Eleanor had land which a) she did not inherit b) she did not hold by dower or jointure c) which she could not afford to buy. This land was almost certainly granted to her by Edward; and since Edward did not go around granting lands to random females, there is something there that cannot easily be explained away.
Anyway, read the book, see what you think.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
The New Look
I hope people like the new look. As Blogger has decided to give us all these wonderful new design facilities it seemed churlish not to use them. I can always change to something different if I get fed up with it.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
The Character of Edward IV
I don't feel like writing about anything deep today, so I thought I'd write something about the character of King Edward IV. An interesting topic, in my opinion.
I find Edward hard to pigeon-hole, as he was certainly a complex and multi-layered individual. So let's examine a few aspects.
Edward as warrior. Arguably, he was one of England's greatest warrior kings. Certainly he never lost a battle, although this may be partly because, as Alianore Audley remarked, he always knew when to run away. Seriously though, folks, that is not a bad quality in a general. It takes intelligence and a certain humility to judge when a withdrawal makes sense. Richard III might have benefited from a similar view of life at Bosworth,as indeed might Lee at Gettysburg, to name two obvious examples of commanders who might have been better advised to fight another day.
Of course, Edward was never tested against a foreign enemy, and on the one occasion he met the French army he chose to make peace. But see above. I suspect Edward made peace because he judged a battle was likely to be lost. He was no mug.
There is a view in some circles that a man can only be judged a great general if he has battered foreigners. This would rule out both Edward and Oliver Cromwell (unless you count the Irish)and leave (probably) Marlborough as the greatest English general of all time. I am not convinced - I think Edward is up there. He fought a whole lot of battles and never lost once. That has to be down to more than luck. He's certainly entitled to be spoken of in the same breath as the above-mentioned Cromwell and Marlborough plus Fairfax, Edward I and Henry V (spit). And, to be very blunt, his track record exceeds Richard III's as the sun does the moon.
Edward as politician. We need to remind ourselves that he came to the throne at 18. What were you like at 18?* It's probably true to say 'lacking in mature judgement'. Edward was probably too lenient in his dealings with certain individuals early in his reign - I'm looking at you, Henry Somerset - but this was surely a benign fault. Better to be overly merciful than a blood-stained tyrant. He learned and became somewhat less forgiving of opponents in later life. By 1471, if you had showed yourself to be an implacable opponent, he was likely to have your head. However, he could still be accommodating to former Lancastrians (Morton for example) and many of his attempts at conciliation bore fruit. People like the Woodvilles/Wydevilles and Lord Audley are good examples of former enemies Edward converted to faithful supporters.
*If 18 or below please ignore this question.
Edward could be ruthless when he needed to be, particularly in the second part of his reign. Executing your own brother is pretty ruthless by any standards. He was also rather careless of the rules of inheritance, and grabbed lands for his family by quite blatant abuse of his power as king. This did not come back to haunt him, but it was undoubtedly a factor in creating the aristocratic discontent that smoothed Richard III's path to to the throne.
It's a neat question whether Edward could have handled Warwick and the Nevilles better. They were family, and they had more or less put him on the throne. His quarrel with them could easily have led to his deposition and death. On the other hand, if he had cut them much more slack he could easily have ended up as nothing more than Warwick's puppet. The conflict had to be resolved somehow, and there were undoubtedly faults on both sides. A greater king might have found a way to conciliate the Nevilles while retaining his own authority, but it would have been a big ask.
His foreign policy fell to pieces in the latter days of his reign. This was largely due to his failure to support Burgundy in its hour of crisis (because of the fat French pension he was receiving) but when considering this you should bear in mind that Burgundy had proved a somewhat inadequate ally (to put it mildly) while Louis XI - a truly brilliant mind and a great ruler - had built France into a power that England was simply not equipped to defeat in either war or diplomacy. An alternative foreign policy, based on aggression towards France, might well have led to even worse disasters.
Edward as a person My impression of Richard, Duke of York, is that (however arrogant and pig-headed he may have been) he was genuinely interested in good government and reform. My impression of his eldest son is that he didn't give a rat's about such things and was much more interested in having a good time while acquiring as much land and money for himself as possible.
Edward undoubtedly liked women, though I think some of his exploits may have been exaggerated. In particular, he had a liking for handsome widows somewhat older than himself. His decision to marry Elizabeth Woodville/Wydeville/Whatever may be romantic in some eyes, but politically it was a crowning folly, irrespective of whether or not he was previously married to Eleanor Talbot/Butler/Botiller. To be blunt, it was irresponsible and almost cost him his throne. It alienated key members of his family (including, almost certainly, his own mother) and ultimately led to the downfall of the House of York.
I find Edward hard to pigeon-hole, as he was certainly a complex and multi-layered individual. So let's examine a few aspects.
Edward as warrior. Arguably, he was one of England's greatest warrior kings. Certainly he never lost a battle, although this may be partly because, as Alianore Audley remarked, he always knew when to run away. Seriously though, folks, that is not a bad quality in a general. It takes intelligence and a certain humility to judge when a withdrawal makes sense. Richard III might have benefited from a similar view of life at Bosworth,as indeed might Lee at Gettysburg, to name two obvious examples of commanders who might have been better advised to fight another day.
Of course, Edward was never tested against a foreign enemy, and on the one occasion he met the French army he chose to make peace. But see above. I suspect Edward made peace because he judged a battle was likely to be lost. He was no mug.
There is a view in some circles that a man can only be judged a great general if he has battered foreigners. This would rule out both Edward and Oliver Cromwell (unless you count the Irish)and leave (probably) Marlborough as the greatest English general of all time. I am not convinced - I think Edward is up there. He fought a whole lot of battles and never lost once. That has to be down to more than luck. He's certainly entitled to be spoken of in the same breath as the above-mentioned Cromwell and Marlborough plus Fairfax, Edward I and Henry V (spit). And, to be very blunt, his track record exceeds Richard III's as the sun does the moon.
Edward as politician. We need to remind ourselves that he came to the throne at 18. What were you like at 18?* It's probably true to say 'lacking in mature judgement'. Edward was probably too lenient in his dealings with certain individuals early in his reign - I'm looking at you, Henry Somerset - but this was surely a benign fault. Better to be overly merciful than a blood-stained tyrant. He learned and became somewhat less forgiving of opponents in later life. By 1471, if you had showed yourself to be an implacable opponent, he was likely to have your head. However, he could still be accommodating to former Lancastrians (Morton for example) and many of his attempts at conciliation bore fruit. People like the Woodvilles/Wydevilles and Lord Audley are good examples of former enemies Edward converted to faithful supporters.
*If 18 or below please ignore this question.
Edward could be ruthless when he needed to be, particularly in the second part of his reign. Executing your own brother is pretty ruthless by any standards. He was also rather careless of the rules of inheritance, and grabbed lands for his family by quite blatant abuse of his power as king. This did not come back to haunt him, but it was undoubtedly a factor in creating the aristocratic discontent that smoothed Richard III's path to to the throne.
It's a neat question whether Edward could have handled Warwick and the Nevilles better. They were family, and they had more or less put him on the throne. His quarrel with them could easily have led to his deposition and death. On the other hand, if he had cut them much more slack he could easily have ended up as nothing more than Warwick's puppet. The conflict had to be resolved somehow, and there were undoubtedly faults on both sides. A greater king might have found a way to conciliate the Nevilles while retaining his own authority, but it would have been a big ask.
His foreign policy fell to pieces in the latter days of his reign. This was largely due to his failure to support Burgundy in its hour of crisis (because of the fat French pension he was receiving) but when considering this you should bear in mind that Burgundy had proved a somewhat inadequate ally (to put it mildly) while Louis XI - a truly brilliant mind and a great ruler - had built France into a power that England was simply not equipped to defeat in either war or diplomacy. An alternative foreign policy, based on aggression towards France, might well have led to even worse disasters.
Edward as a person My impression of Richard, Duke of York, is that (however arrogant and pig-headed he may have been) he was genuinely interested in good government and reform. My impression of his eldest son is that he didn't give a rat's about such things and was much more interested in having a good time while acquiring as much land and money for himself as possible.
Edward undoubtedly liked women, though I think some of his exploits may have been exaggerated. In particular, he had a liking for handsome widows somewhat older than himself. His decision to marry Elizabeth Woodville/Wydeville/Whatever may be romantic in some eyes, but politically it was a crowning folly, irrespective of whether or not he was previously married to Eleanor Talbot/Butler/Botiller. To be blunt, it was irresponsible and almost cost him his throne. It alienated key members of his family (including, almost certainly, his own mother) and ultimately led to the downfall of the House of York.
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Busy with stuff
I'm rather busy with stuff at the moment, so please don't expect a plethora of posts on The Yorkist Age or indeed my other blogs, as I don't have the time. Will get back to this in time, though.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Sir William Herbert and the mess in Wales
Just as Edward was inclined to leave the far North to the Nevilles, so he was inclined to leave Wales to his supporters there, of whom the most remarkable was Sir William Herbert. (It appears that originally Edward planned to campaign in Wales in the summer of 1461, but in the event he never got further than Ludlow and returned to Westminster to hold his first Parliament.)
Herbert was a Welshman, and was to be the first of that nation (barring King Henry VI's Tudor half-brothers, who were a bit of a special case) to be granted an earldom. He undoubtedly earned this honour, and was to pay a terrible price for it in the fullness of time. Knighted by King Henry in 1449, William Herbert had fought in the French wars under Somerset, but despite this - or maybe because of it - became a strong Yorkist supporter. Edward was swift to appoint him to his Privy Council and in May 1461 made him Chamberlain and Chief Justice of South Wales.
The main Lancastrian threat in Wales was organised by Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, who had of course fought at Mortimer's Cross and was to continue to be a thorn in the side of the Yorkist dynasty all the way to Bosworth. Jasper was undoubtedly a warrior of some ability and he appears to have enjoyed some popularity in Wales - at least he was always able to find some Welshmen willing to fight for him. (It is a little odd that Wales was as pro-Lancastrian as it was, given the treatment handed out to that country by Henry IV and his son, but there you are.)
Herbert captured the formidable castle of Pembroke on 30 September, then defeated Tudor, Exeter and the main force of Welsh Lancastrians at Twt Hill near Caernarfon on 16 October. On 4 November Herbert was rewarded with a barony, as Lord Herbert, and granted the castle, town and lordship of Pembroke. The promotion was obviously fully merited.
Denbigh and Carreg Cennan castles fell to the Yorkists in early 1462, but Harlech still held out, and was to continue to do so until 1469. One must assume that it was so remote that King Edward did not see its capture as a priority.
Herbert was a Welshman, and was to be the first of that nation (barring King Henry VI's Tudor half-brothers, who were a bit of a special case) to be granted an earldom. He undoubtedly earned this honour, and was to pay a terrible price for it in the fullness of time. Knighted by King Henry in 1449, William Herbert had fought in the French wars under Somerset, but despite this - or maybe because of it - became a strong Yorkist supporter. Edward was swift to appoint him to his Privy Council and in May 1461 made him Chamberlain and Chief Justice of South Wales.
The main Lancastrian threat in Wales was organised by Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, who had of course fought at Mortimer's Cross and was to continue to be a thorn in the side of the Yorkist dynasty all the way to Bosworth. Jasper was undoubtedly a warrior of some ability and he appears to have enjoyed some popularity in Wales - at least he was always able to find some Welshmen willing to fight for him. (It is a little odd that Wales was as pro-Lancastrian as it was, given the treatment handed out to that country by Henry IV and his son, but there you are.)
Herbert captured the formidable castle of Pembroke on 30 September, then defeated Tudor, Exeter and the main force of Welsh Lancastrians at Twt Hill near Caernarfon on 16 October. On 4 November Herbert was rewarded with a barony, as Lord Herbert, and granted the castle, town and lordship of Pembroke. The promotion was obviously fully merited.
Denbigh and Carreg Cennan castles fell to the Yorkists in early 1462, but Harlech still held out, and was to continue to do so until 1469. One must assume that it was so remote that King Edward did not see its capture as a priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)