One of the issues I have thought both puzzling and key to the events surrounding Richard, Duke of Gloucester’s actions as Protector to Edward V on June 13, 1483 was his summary execution of William Hastings--an execution delivered without, it would seem, due process. From my point of view, this was uncharacteristic action by a man who was for most of his life, all about the rule of law. I struggled to tease apart this event in particular, and the subsequent actions taken by Richard that led him to be crowned king of England. Thus, it was with great anticipation that I opened this book that promised to offer a fresh and intriguing view of the possible motives and reasons that led to Hastings’ execution and Richard’s decision to go after the crown. Hancock did not disappoint.
First, I want comment on the style in which the book is written. It’s like Hancock is speaking with me. This book is highly readable and thoroughly engaging, and whether you agree or not with the theory, it is logically constructed. Hancock was careful to present primary and secondary sources that both substantiated and countered his theory. In the instances where the sources were contrary to his hypothesis, Hancock showed why he thought the interpretation was incorrect or didn’t hold up. He didn’t dismiss these arguments out-of-hand. In all but a small handful of instances, Hancock gives sources to substantiate his position. I will not quibble with a couple of un-sourced statements that were thrown in because they had no effect on the book’s premise.
The book set out to determine when did Richard first decide that he wanted to be King and not protector. The time span Hancock examines was from when Richard first learned his brother Edward IV had died to when Richard was made King on June 26, 1483. Although, Edward IV died April 9, 1483, Richard didn’t learn of it until about a week later. From the time Richard learned of Edward’s death to the council meeting on June 13th, Richard’s actions were consistent with his role as protector. There was no outward indication that he was aiming for anything else. Hancock posits that something happened during that council meeting that changed everything. Per Hancock, Richard learned about the precontracted marriage between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler from William Catesby during a break in the meeting. He also learned that Hastings knew about the precontract. Enraged by this betrayal, Richard returns to the council and accuses Hastings, among others, of treason. However, Hastings was executed that day and the only one to lose his head. Even though I don’t agree with the timing of the events for reasons I won’t go into here, I think the scenario Hancock painted holds together very well.
What I like best about this book is that it is thoughtful and pointed out possible scenarios that I had not considered. Whether or not you will agree with the thesis Hancock lays out in his book, I think it is well worth reading.
Richard III and the Murder in the Tower may be purchased at Amazon.com:
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Authors--share your books with our troops
Ed Patterson, an independent author I met at the Independent Author's Guild discussion group has joined with Smashwords to offer our troops in Iraq and elsewhere free access to electronic copies of our books through a program called ePubDrop. You can read the details about this program on the Smashwords blog.
This Time is now available through this program.
This Time is now available through this program.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Because these are funny
Doctors Notes, lifted from Miss Cellania's blog:
The things doctors have scribbled on patient’s charts when they are in a hurry:
# "Patient has chest pain if she lies on her left side for over a year."
# "On the 2nd day the knee was better and on the 3rd day it disappeared completely."
# "The patient has been depressed ever since she began seeing me in 1993."
# "Discharge status: Alive but without permission."
# "Healthy appearing decrepit 69 year-old male, mentally alert but forgetful."
# "The patient refused an autopsy."
# "The patient has no past history of suicides."
# "Patient has left his white blood cells at another hospital."
# "Patient's past medical history has been remarkably insignificant with only a 40 pound weight gain in the past three days."
# "Patient had waffles for breakfast and anorexia for lunch."
# "She has had no rigors or shaking chills, but her husband states she was very hot in bed last night."
# "She is numb from her toes down."
# "While in the ER, she was examined, X-rated and sent home."
# "The skin was moist and dry."
# "Occasional, constant, infrequent headaches."
# "Patient was alert and unresponsive."
# "She stated that she had been constipated for most of her life, until she got a divorce."
# "I saw your patient today, who is still under our car for physical therapy."
# "The patient was to have a bowel resection. However, he took a job as a stockbroker instead."
# "Patient has two teenage children but no other abnormalities."
# "Skin: Somewhat pale but present."
# "Patient was seen in consultation by Dr. Blank, who felt we should sit on the abdomen, and I agree."
# "By the time he was admitted, his rapid heart stopped, and he was feeling better."
# "The patient was in his usual state of good health until his airplane ran out of gas and crashed."
# "When she fainted, her eyes rolled around the room."
# "Patient was released to outpatient department without dressing."
# "The patient will need disposition, and therefore we will get Dr. Blank to dispose of him."
# "The patient expired on the floor uneventfully."
The things doctors have scribbled on patient’s charts when they are in a hurry:
# "Patient has chest pain if she lies on her left side for over a year."
# "On the 2nd day the knee was better and on the 3rd day it disappeared completely."
# "The patient has been depressed ever since she began seeing me in 1993."
# "Discharge status: Alive but without permission."
# "Healthy appearing decrepit 69 year-old male, mentally alert but forgetful."
# "The patient refused an autopsy."
# "The patient has no past history of suicides."
# "Patient has left his white blood cells at another hospital."
# "Patient's past medical history has been remarkably insignificant with only a 40 pound weight gain in the past three days."
# "Patient had waffles for breakfast and anorexia for lunch."
# "She has had no rigors or shaking chills, but her husband states she was very hot in bed last night."
# "She is numb from her toes down."
# "While in the ER, she was examined, X-rated and sent home."
# "The skin was moist and dry."
# "Occasional, constant, infrequent headaches."
# "Patient was alert and unresponsive."
# "She stated that she had been constipated for most of her life, until she got a divorce."
# "I saw your patient today, who is still under our car for physical therapy."
# "The patient was to have a bowel resection. However, he took a job as a stockbroker instead."
# "Patient has two teenage children but no other abnormalities."
# "Skin: Somewhat pale but present."
# "Patient was seen in consultation by Dr. Blank, who felt we should sit on the abdomen, and I agree."
# "By the time he was admitted, his rapid heart stopped, and he was feeling better."
# "The patient was in his usual state of good health until his airplane ran out of gas and crashed."
# "When she fainted, her eyes rolled around the room."
# "Patient was released to outpatient department without dressing."
# "The patient will need disposition, and therefore we will get Dr. Blank to dispose of him."
# "The patient expired on the floor uneventfully."
Monday, September 7, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
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:
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:
Friday, July 24, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)