Initial Thoughts on Richard II

I was made better acquainted with Richard II by reading Jean Plaidy's "Passage to Pontefract", her handling of the story of John of Gaunt and Richard of Bordeaux, who became the second of that name on the death of his grandfather, Edward III.

This book was a retelling of the history serially, with little extraneous material. Actually, it was like reading a history book with the characters strengthened into fiction. What characters they were! - senile Edward III and his rapacious paramour Alice Perrers, Good Plump Queen Philippa, the wanton turned troubled Fair Maid of Kent, the ambitious (how many times were we reminded) John of Gaunt, a wonderful and treasured Catherine Swynford, down to the quite complex figure of Richard II. History of course is written by the winners, and the Lancastrians may have exaggerated the depth of this monarch's ineptitude.

Another Martyr to the Cause

The Tudor Dynasty, one haunted by a need to perpetuate itself if ever there was, had a number of martyrs to the Cause. Anne Boleyn and the anti-Anne, Jane Seymour, are among the number. In a sense, Henry VIII himself had a life and value system driven by the need to provide an heir, thus he was a martyr of sorts too.

"Plain Jane", by Laurien Gardner (who I gather is also Jennifer Ashley), is a cut above a romance novel, and a level or two below masterful historical fiction. Jane's "plainness" is an attribute beaten to death, and is one that defines her. In truth, (I think) this attribute is her greatest strength, as a foil to the erstwhile fascinating Anne, and its concomitant virtuousness perceived is as strong a draw to Henry as Anne's bewitching smile was. Whatever. Sometimes I see the Six Wives as types enslaved by the Tudor dilemma and victims of the tragedy of not delivering the required societal result for which they were chosen. Jane is the one that delivers, but she has to pay with her life anyway.

The Jane in "Plain Jane" was in the bind of all of the wives, not to be able to question the boss with any long range success, as seen by her defense of a ransacked nunnery which elicited the statement from Henry that he could kill her off too if she opposed him.

Plain Jane was virtuous but not insipid. Of the wives, she may be the least documented, and the treatment in this novel is thus welcome.

Anne Boleyn in her own words

I just read "The Lady in the Tower" by the mistress, Jean Plaidy. Anne tells her story, and one is drawn in by her wisdom in hindsight. She writes/tells from the time when she lives and now her life is done, to paraphrase Chidiock Tichborne. Such a vantage point has made her quite perceptive, especially regarding her imperious behavior around Henry VIII, a man she admits she never loved. Well, he really wasn't that lovable, I should think.

Unlucky in love and embittered thereby - Henry Percy of the North being an early beau, she feels that Henry prevented their union so he could have this tasty morsel to himself. She traded any hope for further love for ambition, a quality that stood her in good standing in her relationship with Henry Tudor. The result is resounding success at getting her way with the King, but at such a cost to the nation, and a knife edge of danger, though she believes the necessary son will result from their relationship.

One may regard Anne as something of a silly woman, but Plaidy's take on her introspection, however late, is very engaging and believable. Basically, she was in over her head, and only in looking back she sees the power of the despot she was dealing with, power over her very life.

Please Accept...

...my apologies for lack of posts lately. I have accepted a new position in municipal government and this sea change has taken up the very most of my energies. I have read "The King's Grace" by Anne Easter Smith, and found it to be enjoyable. While there are some thoughts about what it means to be a bastard in late Medieval England, and the employment of a scarcely known character to be the main character of a historical novel, I haven't the energy to put them together at this point.

Thank you for reading...hope to be back soon!

More on William Marshal

I just finished reading "The Greatest Knight", Elizabeth Chadwick's take on the story of William Marshal. There was a lot of horse coaching and tricking out which reminded me of some male friends who are addicted to their cars. I started reading "car" for "horse" and could channel the emotion of man and beast. As one who never has sat astride a horse (only a pony at the Bronx Zoo), the fact that I could sense the feeling of what it must have been like for a knight such as William Marshal is a testament to Chadwick's writing.

As I was first introduced to this knight in "Devil's Brood" by Sharon Kay Penman, I knew what to expect in Chadwick's character delineation. And I was not disappointed, there were no lapses in strength of character, though there were lapses in Marshal's fortunes. He served first Henry the Young King until a specious slur engendered by jealous fellow knights caused Henry to send him packing. But Marshal was there at his deathbed, and took up the Cross to honor him with a journey to Jerusalem. Similar events unfold in his life in service to the Angevins. His loyalty to his king, whoever it may be at the moment, is his defining attribute.

At the beginning of Marshal's life he was an endangered hostage under King Stephen. When his father, an unfortunate cuss, broke with the conditions and left William to die, Stephen did not kill him. And so the figure that held England together upon the death of King John could easily have been someone else without the innate stamping of the code of chivalry.

This was a good book, well drawn characters, believable intimate scenes, lots of handsome horses. I understand it will be available in the US in the early fall. Maybe then it will get the attention here that it has earned.

The Evil King - King John of England

Just how bad was King John? According to Jean Plaidy, THIS BAD. In her novel, "The Prince of Darkness", he is so absolutely evil that there is not a single redeeming feature to act as a kind of internal foil to flesh out the unscrupulous, unconscionable acts described, among them murder, rapine, egregious theft, inordinate lust, lack of valor and military success, disrespect for the Church, etc.

I had thought John had some connection with Robin Hood (the whole Robin Hood legend is one of my cultural gaps), but upon reading superficially I find that the proto Robin Hood was first mentioned with regard to the 1230's, and thus a little later than King John. Plaidy makes no reference to Robin Hood in her novel. Anyway, to her John is the physical embodiment of evil, and no one else in the novel is permitted to be bad, with the possible exception of King Philip of France. All of the barons are exemplary, contained, assuredly not rapacious as a 13th century baron might have been.

William Marshal puts in appearances throughout, an example of a throwback to when times were better and he, as the embodiment of chivalry, was respected, consulted, and listened to.

This novel definitely had its uses because I knew nothing of King John, so this was new territory for me. Of course he was driven to affix his seal to Magna Carta. Plaidy's treatment of John was so slamming that it got to be a touch tiresome.

As a digression - almost 15 years ago I was lucky enough to take a trip to London. There I saw a contemporary Magna Carta in the British Library and it was one of those OMIGOD moments - THERE IT IS. I had a similar moment when I saw the Wilton Diptych in one of the museums - (across a spacious room, in the middle of the room - OMIGOD it IS the Wilton Diptych!!!) But I am just a poor lass, and can no longer afford London, or Europe, so I am building something of an affinity with Arthur Waley, that great translator of "The Tale of Genji" who never went to Japan. Luckily the internet is something of a substitute, but not as good as the real thing.

Back to John - a little surfing convinces me he had some good points, chiefly administrative talents. Apparently he functioned as an impartial adjudicator in the Royal Courts. But he has been compared unfavorably to Nixon, and Wikipedia tells me he was elected Worst Briton of the 13th century. In any case not a cardboard figure of seething evil.

The Early 14th Century

I have just finished "The Greatest Traitor", Ian Mortimer's study of Roger Mortimer, grandson to William Marshal. Particularly interesting therein is the depiction of the Great Famine of 1315-1317, but some say lasting as far as 1322. Hail the power of weather to change demographics. The Famine contributed to events of the entire 14th century, laying the groundwork for, among other things, the horrifically extensive ravages of the Black Death 30 years later. And, of course, I ordered a book from Amazon that treats the subject in book form depth.

I needn't go into a study of Edward II now, as there is a website that I believe covers the subject quite well, but I am beginning to see the fascination his story can engender. His dispensation of personal favoritism to the max as we would say today - the corruption of those close to him, his utter incapability as a soldier. Of course, there is the fascination regarding his death, a debated puzzle that recalls the murder of the Princes 160 or so years later.

This book is a teaser taste for finding out more about the early 14th century. And, as Roger Mortimer was the first Earl of March, his life was to presage dynastic problems in the coming decades.