Proper protocol on hugging a baby :-)

Sorry for not posting for so long, but my excuse this time is that I'm working on the edits for Loyalty Binds Me, the sequel to This Time. So I have to thank my cousin for sending sharing this delightful manual: Instructions for Properly Hugging a Baby.

Enjoy!

Review: VEIL OF LIES by Jeri Westerson

Veil of Lies by Jeri Westerson
Published 2008 by St. Martin’s Minotaur, New York

Veil of Lies: A Medieval Noir is Jeri Westerson’s debut novel featuring Crispin Guest; a medieval tec of the Sam Spade ilk. Originally from nobility with land, wealth, and a promising future, he loses it all to a rash and treasonous act against King Richard II. Although lucky to be alive, he was degraded and left with nothing but the clothes on his back.

Though literate, Crispin doesn’t have the skills for most employment. But he has a knack for finding things and develops a reputation as “The Tracker.” He contracts his services for six pence per day, but rarely has two farthings to rub together. At the novel’s start, we find him in debt, owing his landlord, the butcher, and the couple who befriended him, pub owners who are willing to maintain a running tab. He is summoned to the manor of Nicholas Walcote, a wealthy cloth merchant who wants to hire Crispin to spy on his wife, who Nicholas suspects of infidelity. Crispin is loath to take the job, and even though his fee is the only thing between him and supper, he turns it down.

However, Nicholas would not be so easily dismissed, and what ensues is a tale of loyalty, murder, love, and international intrigue that stretches from England to Italy. At its heart is a relic—a medieval lie detector, the Mandyllon or Veronica from the Latin: vera icona, true image. Through his investigation, Crispin not only discovers his quarry, but also learns a good deal about himself, and he is not altogether pleased.

Westerson wastes no words bringing the characters to life in a fourteenth-century London that the reader can not only see in the mind’s eye, but hear, feel, and smell as well. This book should appeal to readers who enjoy a medieval setting, mystery, and the hardboiled detective that is Crispin Guest. For me, the best thing is that there are more novels in the works. The next, Serpent in the Thorns, is currently available, and the third, The Demon’s Parchment, will be available this month. Happily, there are more to come, as I know this is one series that I’ll want to keep reading.

Where can I find this book?

We all know how to find a book that we'd like to read, either to buy or to borrow--right? Not exactly. Depending on where one lives, this can be a challenge to find even the more popular books, because of distribution considerations, further complicated by high shipping charges. This can even be the case with ebooks, as not all countries have access. When I first published This Time, I was thrilled to see it appear in all the Amazons. Still, for those who don't live in an "Amazon country" (Australia is an example), getting my book from Amazon meant paying exorbitant shipping fees. It was, in fact, fellow Ricardians (people interested in restoring Richard III's good name) who pointed me to alternative book distributors. So, here's a list of places, besides the usual suspects such as Amazon, to buy and find books no matter where you live.

Print Books:
Buy: Better World Books and The Book Depository
Find: Google Books (will also search libraries); AddAll; Bookfinder

eBooks:
Buy & Free: Smashwords; Digital Books; Project Gutenberg; Google Books; Internet Archive
Find: AddAll Ebooks

I'm sure this list is not comprehensive. If you know of other resources, please let us know.

And let us not forget about a great resource--the local library. Since I live in the USA, I do have ready access to Amazon, B&N, etc., but the cost of some research material can be quite high, so I relied on my library to obtain these books through the inter-library loan (ILL) system. ILL gave me access to books from public and university libraries from all over the US. I can't say enough good about the libraries and our librarians.

Book Review: The Broken Sword

The Broken Sword by Rhoda Edwards
Published 1976 by Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York
(UK title: Some Touch of Pity)

The Broken Sword: A Novel of the Reign of Richard III by Rhoda Edwards is among the best fictional accounts of the late maligned king that I have read. It covers the last two years of Richard’s life, from shortly before he discovered his brother, Edward IV, had died and named him protector of his son Edward V, to his tragic defeat two years later after having suffered the deaths of his only legitimate son and of his wife of twelve years. We get a real sense of his character and the difficulties he had to deal with during his rule.

Edwards shows us the king from the eyes of several people who were important to him in some way, from his own view point, and from Robert Bolman, the clerk Richard promoted based solely on merit—a truly unique act of those times. Even though this two year period was presented from multiple view points, Edwards gave each a unique voice.

I found the chapters told by Richard’s wife, Anne Neville, his close friend and ally, Francis Lovell, and his physician, Dr. William Hobbes especially poignant. In these chapters we see Richard at the height of his powers and personal happiness and at his most vulnerable and at the depths of his emotional agony.

One point that had puzzled me was why Richard rushed into that last fateful battle where he lost his life and subsequently, his reputation. Edwards shows us Richard was among other things, under fiscal pressure to not delay the battle. The treasury was still depleted and not unlike affairs today, he needed money to govern. Had he pushed the battle back to when he could have been assured of the necessary troops, he risked not having the capital to pay for them. One point Edwards developed that I particularly liked was how Richard had been aware of the Stanleys’ potential betrayal, but that he had approached their “fence sitting” pragmatically.

There were a few expository paragraphs, more so near the beginning of the book, interrupting the narrative flow that Edwards had otherwise so beautifully crafted. I would have preferred it if those parts had been handled through author’s notes at the end.

Ordinarily, I don’t recommend fiction as a reference for historical facts, since to get at what the author interprets as an emotional or larger truth, the writer might decide to “bend” a few facts. In this instance, I take exception. Not only did Edwards not take any license with the facts, but I feel she did find the larger truth. This book stands equally with the other oft touted Ricardian classics—Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey and Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman.

The Broken Sword is no longer in print. Used copies are available.

Patrol Cats

I was reminded of a pair of cats that I “rescued” while reading Sharon Kay Penman’s blog post: Shadow and Bambi. Shadow is a white Alsatian shepherd that Penman rescued a few weeks ago, and from all reports he is absolutely blossoming under her loving care.

Anyhoo, back in the early 1980s, I had bought a three family house in Hartford, Connecticut and shortly after getting settled into my second floor apartment and having filled the other two apartments with tenants, I discovered some mouse droppings in the cellar. I already had two dogs (a golden retriever mix and a Welsh terrier) and two small indoor cats. I reckoned that my two kitties wouldn’t be able to handle the mice, and my dogs were too goofy to do it, so I went to the pound to get a mouser. I got there a little early and while I was waiting to enter, a woman came in with two rather large, beautiful cats. Her children had developed allergies to cats, and she couldn’t keep her beloved felines. They never saw the inside of the pound.

The first floor tenants were students at Trinity College and they immediately took to the cats. It was a great arrangement—the cats dispensed with the mice and patrolled the perimeter making sure no more entered. The students were thrilled to have cats around, and the cats integrated themselves into the house so quickly that it was like they had always been there. They took to my dogs instantly. They’d walk with me when I walked the dogs; dashing in front of the pups and then throwing themselves on their backs to get attention. When the dogs sidestepped their bodies, the cats would leap up, dash in front and repeat the process.

The students ended up taking care of the cats most of the time. I’d get their food and took care of the annual vet visits.

The students eventually graduated and I saw how attached one in particular had become to them, so I offered them to her, as they were really her cats at that point. She wanted them, but she was moving to Switzerland, so there were some complications. But we worked everything out and they spent their remaining years living somewhere outside of Geneva.

I wish all animal stories could end as happily as this one did.

On the princes surviving Richard III

Despite Richard III’s good governance and numerous accomplishments as Lord of the North for his brother, Edward IV’s proxy and as England’s king for just over two years (June 26, 1483 to August 22, 1485), Richard has come to us as the evil uncle who, to gain the crown, murdered his nephews and ruled with a tyrannical grip. While the fate of the princes remains a mystery to this day, the evidence of what manner of ruler and man he was belies this impression. For example, upon taking the crown, Richard reformed the laws to ensure the right to a qualified jury and right of the accused to bail writing, “The law shall cease to be an instrument of oppression and extortion.” And yet, his reputation seems to have been irrevocably stained by his supposed murder of his brother’s two boys, Edward V and Richard of York.

Most Ricardians, and I among them, would like to prove that Richard didn’t have the princes killed, or better still, that they weren’t killed. Unfortunately, any forensic evidence has long disappeared, so we must rely on contemporary reports, secondary sources, and logical deduction to come to some reasonable conclusions. Here’s my stab on why I think that Richard didn’t have the princes killed, and that they survived him.

Among other Ricardians, I maintain that if Richard had ordered that the boys be killed, he would have made their demise public. Keeping it secret would have done him no good. If the bodies were mutilated in some way that was obvious, I believe he would have accused whoever he had to of murder and had them quickly executed. That would have taken care of the "problem" for good. To me, the main reason that makes sense considering his silence and that the living royal bastards were not paraded around from time to time is that he secured them from potential harm and abduction and had to keep their whereabouts secret.

On August 9, 1483, Richard learned of a failed conspiracy to remove the princes from their apartments in the Tower by John Welles, Margaret Beaufort’s half brother (Margaret Beaufort was Henry Tudor’s mother and Lord Thomas Stanley’s wife.) Annette Carson points out in Richard III: The Maligned King that if Richard had already had the boys killed and had not as yet said anything about it, then this was a perfect opportunity to reveal the bodies, accuse, and then convict Welles of their murder. Since this didn’t transpire, I must conclude that Edward and Richard were alive and in London then.

Shortly after the failed plot to abduct the princes, I think Richard had them removed to separate and what he thought were safe places. I think Richard III assigned one of his trusted “sergeants”, possibly Tyrrell, to remove Edward V to Ireland and for another, likely Edward Brampton, to remove Richard to his home in Portugal. (More on Brampton later.)

Once the boys "disappeared" Richard risked the rumors that the boys had been murdered. In October of 1483, Richard defeated a rebellion whose initial purpose was to restore Edward V to the throne, but by mid-September, the rebels had switched their support to Henry Tudor when rumors spread that Edward V was dead. Around that time, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham gave his support to the rebellion and it’s sometimes referred to as Buckingham’s rebellion. When he became king, Richard had made Buckingham England’s Constable, and as late as August 27, 1483, Richard III signed the final warrant for Buckingham to enter his Bohun inheritance (that had been denied to him by Edward IV). There is some speculation that if the princes were killed, that Buckingham was involved. However, Richard had later learned of Buckingham’s treachery and had executed him for treason when he put down the rebellion, the princes were probably alive at that time because Richard could have easily pinned the murder on his former ally and constable.

One point that is often overlooked when discussing the mystery of Edward IV’s boys is that there was a third prince—George’s son Edward, Earl of Warwick whose fate is known. George, Duke of Clarence was married to Isabel Neville, sister to Anne, Richard’s wife. Isabel died just over a year before Clarence was executed for treason and their children were attainted. Edward was no longer eligible to inherit title. Without this impediment, the crown would have gone to Clarence’s son, not Richard since George, had he survived Edward IV, would have been next in line after Edward IV’s boys.* After Edward IV died, Richard took George’s children into his household and placed them at Sheriff Hutton where Edward of Warwick and his sister, Margaret lived with the other children. When Henry Tudor defeated Richard, he imprisoned Edward in the tower, and eventually had him (and Perkin Warbec) executed in 1499. Interestingly, if Warbec had in fact been Richard of York, then it was Henry VII and not Richard III who executed two of the three princes. On a side note, in 1541 Henry VII’s son, Henry VIII executed Edward of Warwick’s sister, Margaret Pole, who by then was nearly sixty-eight.

The Battle of Stoke, which is generally thought to have been the last battle of the Wars of the Roses, had an obvious impostor at its head in the form of a ten year-old boy who Henry VII placed in his kitchens and gave the name of Lambert Simnel. However, Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487, which I doubt that she would have done for an impostor at its inception. I think that Edward V was still alive while Stoke was being planned but that he died too close to the battle for it to have been called off. Another possibility is that Edward V was killed in that battle and that Henry VII put Lambert Simnel in as an impostor. Later, Margaret supported the man who claimed to be Richard of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the nobles who believed he was Richard of York Would she have supported someone who she knew to be an impostor? Most accounts of Warbec indicated that he spoke perfect English and was knowledgeable of Edward IV’s court. While not absolute proof that he was Edward’s son as he claimed, it does add circumstantial evidence in his favor.

A factor that I think adds to the circumstantial evidence that at least Richard of York survived Richard III is Richard's generous rewards to Edward Brampton, a converted Jew who first entered into Edward IV's service and then Richard's. In addition to monetary rewards, Richard knighted Brampton, the first English monarch to knight a converso. I think Richard III had Brampton take Richard of York into his care and rewarded Brampton for his loyalty and support. (In his confession that he was not Richard of York, Warbec referred to the time he spent in Brampton’s household.)

Therefore, because of the circumstantial and documentary evidence, and by my application of Occam's razor, I think it likely that the princes survived Richard and he got them out of the country to safe places.

*By the 1484 Act of Parliament, Titulus Regius named Edward of Warwick ineligible: “...by an Acte made in the fame Parliament, George Duc of Clarence, Brother to the faid King Edward nowe deceffed, was convicted and atteinted of High Treafon; as in the fame Acte is conteigned more at large. Bicaufe and by reafon wherof, all the Iffue of the faid George, was and is difhabled and barred of all Right and Clayme, that in any wife they might have or chalenge by Enheritance, to the Crown and Dignite Roiall of this Reame, by the auncien Lawe and Cuftome of this fame Reame.”

Sources:

1. Carson, Annette. Richard III: The Maligned King. Second Edition. The History Press. 2009.
2. Fields, Bertram. Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes. First Perennial Edition. New York. Regan Books, an Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers. 2000
3. Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. Book of the Month Club Edition. New York. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1996.
4. Wroe, Ann. The Perfect Prince: the Mystery of Perkin Warbeck and his Quest for the Throne of England. New York. Random House. 2003.
5. Titulus Regius. From the 1484 Parliament of Richard III reproduced on The Richard III Society, American Branch website.

Sequel Update

First, my apologies for being so slack about updating Random Thoughts. I do have some news—I’m getting Loyalty Binds Me, the sequel to This Time ready to send to my copy editor.

Loyalty Binds Me starts a year after the first book ends, two years after Richard arrives in the 21st-century. Even though this continues Richard’s story in our time, it can be read without having read the first book. I don’t appreciate cliff-hangers at the end of books that I read, so I would not subject my readers to that in my work.

One of Richard’s mottos was loyaulte me lie, which translates to loyalty binds me. He would sign it with his name both on personal correspondence and on official documents. For Richard it seemed, it was more than a motto, but a code by which he lived.

My projected schedule for the sequel is to send it to my copy editor by mid-September, with a publish date around mid-November.