My brief but hectic UK trip

Just got back from England and thought I’d take a few minutes to talk about my latest adventures.

My first stop was the Battle of Bosworth reenactment to promote my book, This Time. I met up with two Ricardian friends who formed a partnership called White Boar and to my joy and gratitude have agreed to distribute my book in the UK. The Heritage Center set me up with a small table and although I had some stiff competition from Philippa Gregory who was there signing her latest book, I did manage to sell 14 signed copies of mine. But the best news is the Heritage Center shop bought 10 copies from White Boar for sale at their shop. I signed those copies as well. Then, the cherry on top of the icing on the cake was the Richard III Society’s tent was next to us, and they gave White Boar a spot at their AGM (annual meeting) where more of my books will be available. And Phil Stone, the society’s chairman bought a copy.

It’s a good thing I got to see the reenactment in 2006, because I was pretty much tied to my table the whole time. Except for bio breaks, this was my view of the reenactment.





The second reason for my trip was to do some research for the third book, Strange Times (still a work in progress). To do this, I needed to rent a car because a few of the places I needed to see are not near public transportation or sufficiently out of the way so that I’d eat up my time just getting to a place. My mantra became “keep left, left turn on side, right turn cross over.” I kept repeating it over and over and didn’t have any problems adjusting.

Since the novel begins at the end of the Battle of Stoke with Henry VII’s troops roundly defeating the Yorkist rebels, I had to see and walk over some of the ground where the battle took place. Unfortunately, much of the land is privately owned and being farmed.





Part of the battlefield abuts the River Trent. According to what I’ve read, the far bank is high, which you can see here, but now the bank has a retaining wall, which undoubtedly wasn’t there in 1487.





Next research stop was Witney--noted for wool and woolen blanket production--and Minster Lovel Hall, about three miles upstream from Witney on Windrush River.
Buttercross Market Square





Windrush between Witney and the Cogges, a medieval farm





Minster Lovel Hall from the Windrush





Windrush at the edge of Minster Lovel Hall





My research for the third book done, I drove to Reading to see my friends from way back and returned the car. I still needed to do a bit of research for an unrelated book, so I split my time between visiting with my friends and taking the train into London. Part of this research brought me back to the tower, but now to see the Royal Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula where certain headless royalty were buried.
Tower of London from the underground stop





St. Peter ad Vincula (grassy foreground is where several people lost their heads, including William Hastings.





On my last day, I met with Annette Carson and we traded books. She also gave me two signed copies for the US AGM's sales table. Her book, Richard III, the Maligned King is well worth reading. I'm about half way through it and I'm singularly impressed with the quality of research and writing. I plan on reviewing this and Peter Hancock's book shortly.

Myth--Henry Stafford made to marry an older woman--Katherine Woodville

I must thank Susan Higginbotham for the idea to include it as part of the myth-busting series from her Medieval Woman blog post on this topic where she points out that Katherine was about two years Henry’s junior.

My first search was for statements indicating this was a May/September match as some writers of both fiction and non-fiction have recently used to give reason for Stafford’s apparent contempt for his marriage. Interestingly, even the secondary sources I’ve investigated don’t make that claim.

Neither Kendall (1955) nor Ross (1997) claims that Katherine was twice Buckingham’s age when he was made to marry her when he was a boy.

Could it have been confused by some with the John Woodville (aged 20) match to Katherine Neville (aged 65) in 1465 (per Charles Ross in ‘Edward IV’ p 93?) Please forgive any typos I may have introduced transcribing the snippets.

“..In January 1465 the queen brought off a less suitable match -- the marriage of her younger brother, John Woodville, then aged about twenty, to the very wealthy dowager duchess of Norfolk, Katherine Nevill[e], who was then a ‘slip of a girl’ (juvencula) of at least sixty-five,...

“Aristocratic husbands were soon found for three more of the queen’s sisters. Their betrothals or marriages seem to have taken place soon after the baptism of the royal couple’s first child, Elizabeth of York, who was born on 11 February 1466. Katherine Woodville married Henry Stafford, grandson and heir of the duke of Buckingham;...”

So, even if Ross has the year wrong, he doesn’t explicitly state that Katherine was much older than Buckingham and the implication is a stretch since he mentions other matches with the Katherine Woodville/Henry Stafford match.

According to Ross, Stafford’s objection was one of wealth and inheritance in that the Woodvilles had little money and were considered upstarts.

Per the Royal Genealogy at Hull, Catherine Wydeville was born 1458, married Henry Stafford in February of 1466 and died in 1497. The same site gives Henry Stafford’s birth as September 4, 1455 and also lists five children from that marriage.

Then, the real mystery is why and how the myth that Katherine was about twelve years Buckingham’s senior has been assumed as fact by some recent writers of both fiction and non-fiction.

Interesting aside from ‘The dictionary of English history’ by Sir Sidney Low as to why Buckingham turned against Richard:

In the spirit of Mythbusting...

Apollo 11 Moon Landing really happened.

Unfortunately, a small percentage of people in the conspiracy fringes hold that the 1969 moon landing never happened--it was all staged in a studio.

Nonsense! It really happened and is so well documented that it boggles my mind that about 6% of Americans think this glorious event was a hoax. So I'm pleased to share National Geographic's own Mythbusting article.

Horace Walpole: Vampires , Doubts, and Serendipity

I recently picked up The Vampyre: A Bedside Companion edited by Christopher Frayling and in the introduction I stumbled upon the name of Horace Walpole as having written what is often considered to be the first gothic novel (Castle of Otranto (1764)) based on a nightmare he’d had. “What?” thought I. “Could this have been written by the same Walpole who wrote Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III (1768)?” A quick Google search revealed it was indeed the same person. So not only was he an early revisionist, but also a Gothic novel pioneer.

What I like about Doubts is that he questioned the prevailing “historical facts” of the time that Richard committed the following crimes:

1. His murder of Edward prince of Wales, son of Henry the Sixth.
2. His murder of Henry the Sixth.
3. The murder of his brother George duke of Clarence.
4. The execution of Rivers, Gray, and Vaughan.
5. The execution of Lord Hastings.
6. The murder of Edward the Fifth and his brother.
7. The murder of his own queen.

Because the executions are so well documented and there is no doubt that they did take place, Walpole instead questions More’s assumptions of Richard’s motivations.

Regardless of whether his conclusions were correct, the real value in Doubts for me is that he questioned the “facts” about Richard III and kept the door open for more research. As George Carlin said, “Question everything.”

So what does this have to do with serendipity? According to the article (cited) and the etymology given in The American Heritage Dictionary, Walpole is accredited with coining this word.

Horace Walpole
Historic Doubts

Myth: Richard and Anne were childhood sweethearts

Since, by his actions, Richard appeared to be faithful to Anne throughout his marriage (although there is some indication that he may have strayed once or twice) and he seemed to genuinely mourn his wife’s death, many Ricardians retrofitted these behaviors and flat-footedly declared that he therefore must have been in love with her since his childhood.

Regardless of Richard’s motivations to marry Anne--and surely Anne’s inheritance played some major part--his behavior is the more telling as to his feelings for his wife once they were married. For one, in order to marry Anne, Richard had to effectively accept a prenuptial that denied transfer of Anne’s inheritance to him (the amount granted as condition that Clarence drop his claim) should their marriage end in divorce. (I could only find second hand reference to this in Markham and Kendall and this from Croyland:
“...At last, their most loving brother, king Edward, agreed to act as mediator between them; and in order that the discord between princes of such high rank might not cause any hindrance to the carrying out of his royal intentions in relation to the affairs of France, the whole misunderstanding was at last set at rest, upon the following terms: the marriage of the duke of Gloucester with Anne before-named was to take place, and he was to have such and so much of the earl's lands as should be agreed upon between them through the mediation of arbitrators; while all the rest were to remain in the possession of the duke of Clarence...”


However, I found a mystery surrounding the marriage. Up until the publication of Peter Clarke’s article in 2005 on English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary, it was thought that Richard married Anne without the requisite Papal dispensation. According to this article: “...they had sought a dispensation to marry from the penitentiary in early 1472, for it was granted on 22 April that year, and they were probably married shortly afterwards.” So, by the date on the dispensation, they should have been married no earlier than the end of April of that year (allowing time for the dispensation to reach them). But according to a letter (690) written by John Paston on the 17th of February 1472, Richard and Anne had already married! This predates the dispensation. If the date on Paston’s letter is accurate, then Richard and Anne must have wedded without this document, but only with the assurance that they would get it soon.

Assuming these dates are correct and that Richard had less to gain from the marriage because the “spoils” were divided between Anne and her sister, Isabel and possibly because Richard would be left with little if they divorced, can one conclude that by the time of their marriage, Richard was following his heart?

Reference:

Clarke, Peter D. English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century. English Historical Review Vol. CXX No. 488. 2005

Croyland Chronicle Continuations, 1453-1486. Richard III Society, American Branch http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/index.html

Gairdner, James. The Paston Letters 1422-1509 A.D. Volume III, Westminster. Archibald Constable and Co., Ltd. 1900. Letter 690


Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. New York. W. W. Norton & Company Inc. 1955.

Markham, Sir Clements R. Richard III: His Life & Character Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research. New York. Russell & Russell. First published 1906 (rescued 1968 by Russell & Russell).

Deer update

Momma and her fawn were cavorting in my yard today and stopped long enough for me to snap a couple of photos.








note to self: go back to Ricardian things, enough with this cuteness!

Deer returns

I looked out my front door yesterday and was greeted by this sight:








I thought it was curious that the deer seemed to be resting in the open (sort of) in the middle of the day and even wondered if it had the equivalent of 'mad cow' disease. Later, however, my mate noticed a fawn and this deer cavorting on my neighbor's lawn. Was she giving birth in my front yard? Wish I had stayed at the door watching. What a sight that would have been!