His Last Mistress

James Duke of Monmouth, by William Wissing

James Scott, Duke of Monmouth and eldest son of Charles II, is a man who is known for many things; his affairs, his rebellion, his rivalry with his uncle, and his bungled execution. His portrait shows a man with the look, and probably the charm, of his royal father. One thing that is sometimes lost in the drama of James’ political life and scandals is the great love he had for Henrietta Wentworth. In her stunning debut novelette His Last Mistress, seventeenth century historian Andrea Zuvich beautifully explores the love affair between James and Henrietta.

Henrietta was not his first lover. James was married, and also had children with acknowledged mistress Eleanor Needham. He was a man of the Restoration court; a gambler, a drinker, politically influential and above all a womaniser. His love of the fairer sex was well known, and Henrietta was all too aware of the reputation James had. Still, the couple were attracted to each other, and that attraction was intense. Try as they might to resist the force that pulls them together they cannot stay apart.

The story opens at the couple’s first meeting at one of the gorgeous Restoration masques, and we are quickly swept up on a journey through their time together with delicious prose and lovely period detail. The pace of this novelette was good- not so fast as to be dizzying, but not so slow you find it drags. The period detail was just right, too- enough to feel authentic, but not so much you feel as though you’re being beaten over the head with it. The scene setting was gorgeous, I felt happy, sad, excited, disappointed- my emotional reaction was strong because I cared about Monmouth and Henrietta, and Eleanor Needham made me quite cross! Lots of familiar faces crop up- King Charles, Barbara Villiers, James and his daughters, Anne and Mary, and Catherine of Braganza, among others. The word choices made in the narrative and the use of contemporary language in spoken lines were a lovely touch and really brought the story to life.

Overall, this novelette was brilliant and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The pace, detail, character development, scene setting, twists, language and emotional investment were all great. My only grumble is that as a novelette, the story was over much too soon!

-

This is a review of an ARC of ‘His Last Mistress’ by Andrea Zuvich, which is available as an e-book for Amazon Kindle, Barnes and Noble Nook, Apple iStore, Sony e-Reader, Smashwords, and other electronic devices.

You can follow Andrea’s blog the Seventeenth Century Lady by clicking here. She is also on facebook and twitter.

The Boleyn King

History is full of what ifs. What if Mary I had had a healthy child? What if Catherine of Aragon’s son had lived in 1511? What if, even before that, prince Arthur had not died in Ludlow and had become king? A biggie in the Tudor world is, of course- what if Anne Boleyn had not miscarried in January 1536? The Boleyn King explores this premise. In this book, Anne Boleyn was not executed and delivered a healthy son in the summer of 1536- Henry William. When Henry VIII dies in January 1547 it is Anne Boleyn’s son, not Jane Seymour’s, that becomes king as Henry IX.

Have you ever wondered what would have happened if this hadn’t?

An alternative history gives an author an ideal opportunity to explore a what if? scenario with freedom. Some things remain, such as the executions of Lady Salisbury and the Earl of Surrey, the date of Henry VIII’s death, the existence of Lady Jane Grey and the status of Lady Mary as unmarried and illegitimate. Other things become open to interpretation- Elizabeth is not a bastard here, but an influential princess royal, Anne Boleyn an ageing dowager queen, and Lord Rochford a scheming Lord Protector.

Anne Boleyn remains, in this novel, a highly controversial queen and the legitimacy of her children questionable. The religious divisions of the mid sixteenth century still plague this England, with Mary as a catholic figurehead. There is a dangerous plot to remove The Boleyn King from his throne- who is behind this plot, and why? William, Elizabeth, and their friends Dominic and Minuette, work to solve this mystery. Weave into this plot a classic love story element, and the result is a satisfying read.

The prose of the novel switches between storytelling and the diary entries of Minuette, whom I would call the main character of this story. The language is modern and uncomplicated, the writing smooth and fluid. There was the occasional ‘Americanism’- the use of fall instead of autumn, for example- but that didn’t irk too much and did not distract me from the story. Even though the history is alternative, research has clearly gone into the period detail of this novel which makes it feel authentic. The ending is brilliant, and sets the next novel in this Boleyn trilogy up perfectly.

Overall, this is an easy, satisfying read, ideal for historical fiction fans in general. The romance is not overdone, but neither is the politics. A good read for the beach this summer.

-

This is a review of the ARC of The Boleyn King by Laura Andersen, kindle edition, sent to me via NetGalley. The book is available to buy in paperback and e-reader format now.

Uneasy Lies the Head….

Often when studying the Tudor period, May 17th is dominated by the five men executed as the lovers of Anne Boleyn. Yet, this is not the only significant execution to take place on this date- Edward Stafford, the third Duke of Buckingham, also faced his doom at Tower Hill on this day fifteen years earlier.

Edward Stafford, third Duke of Buckingham, painted by an unknown artist

Edward Stafford was born on February 3rd 1478 in Wales to Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and his wife, Catherine Woodville. Catherine was the younger sister of Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s queen, and Henry was a direct descendant of Edward III of England. In 1483, the duke was executed for treason after rebelling against Richard III and all his goods were forfeit to the crown, leaving Edward disinherited.

Richard III was killed during the Battle of Bosworth Field and his opponent, Henry Tudor, became King of England in August 1485. He went on to marry Elizabeth of York, Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV’s daughter and Edward Stafford’s cousin, uniting the warring houses of York and Lancaster, and he began to rule England as Henry VII. Edward’s father’s lands and titles were restored and Edward became the 3rd Duke of Buckingham- though as he wasn’t of age, his wardship was granted to the king’s mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort. In 1485, Edward was created a Knight of the Bath by Henry VII, and in December 1490 he was married to the Earl of Northumberland’s daughter, Eleanor Percy, with whom he had three daughters and a son. Edward was clearly trusted by his new king, and in 1495 was created a Knight of the Order of the Garter, the highest order of chivalry in England and a great honour. In 1497, Edward supported his king during the Cornish rebellion; a rebellion that was quickly supressed.

In April 1509, Henry VII died and his second son, Henry VIII, inherited the throne of England. Henry and his wife Catherine of Aragon were crowned together on June 24th 1509, where Edward acted as Lord High Steward for the celebrations. Soon after this, he was appointed Lord High Constable of England by his new king and became a privy councillor.

Scandal soon crept up on Buckingham when in 1510 he discovered his sister, Anne, had caught the eye of Henry VIII. She was married to Lord Hastings at the time, and any affair would have caused chaos. It is not known if it was the king or his man William Compton that had the affair; nevertheless Anne was sent to a nunnery sixty miles away by her husband after a fierce confrontation, and Edward removed himself from court.

Edward Stafford was played by Steven Waddington in Showtime’s “The Tudors”. The programme portrayed him as cowardly when faced with his executioner, yet he was said to have faced death with bravery and dignity

In 1513, Edward served in the English army in France when Henry went to war and was reconciled with the king the following year. Before 1520, Edward’s son had married the daughter of the Countess of Salisbury, Ursula Pole. The Countess, Margaret Pole, was the daughter of George Plantagenet, who was the brother of Edward IV- Edward’s connections within the English nobility were increasing, and he was one of the wealthiest noblemen in the country. At the same time Cardinal Thomas Wolsey was quickly rising in the king’s favour, much to the annoyance of much of the English nobility. Wolsey was a man of low birth- the son of a butcher- who had worked hard to reach so high; he believed ability was much more important than high birth status. The nobility, however, resented him taking what they saw as their rightful place in the king’s good graces. Edward was not afraid to voice his opinions about Wolsey, or his policies.

In June 1520 Edward attended the Field of the Cloth of Gold with Henry VIII in France, and although his place at court seemed secure, he was under suspicion of treason. Later that year, Wolsey recieved a letter from an ex-servant of Edward’s, Charles Knyvet. Charles was questioned, revealing Edward had listened to prophecies predicting the king’s death, plotted to kill the king himself and had imagined himself becoming King of England- he certainly had the blood connections to make such a claim, not to mention the wealth and the potential support. Henry was determined to convict Buckingham for this treason.

Edward was summoned to court in April 1521 and suspecting no trouble, he attended. Upon arrival he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London to await trail. He was tried on May 13th at Westminster for crimes dated between 1511-1520- Buckingham denied them all. Wolsey called Knyvet to be a witness in court, along with Edward’s chaplain John Delacourt and his chancellor Gilbert. All the witnesses testified against Buckingham, he was found guilty of high treason by a jury of his peers and was sentenced to death by beheading.

Edward faced execution on Tower Hill on the morning of May 17th 1521. He was not fortunate to suffer a quick death, as was intended by the granting of a beheading. Three strikes of the axe were needed to complete the job- not as botched as some executions, but not as merciful as others. He was laid to rest at the church of the Austin Friars and his lands, goods and titles were forfeit to the crown.

The Duke of Buckingham is remembered at the Tower Hill memorial in London (picture my own)

-

This post is adapted from the entry ‘Edward Stafford’, which was originally published on my ex-blog Remembering the Executed.

Further reading:

“House of Treason: The Rise and Fall of the Howard Family in Tudor England” by Robert Hutchinson, paperback, 2009

“In the Lion’s Court” by Derek Wilson, hardback edition, 2001

“Henry: Virtuous Prince” by Dr David Starkey, paperback, 2009

The Battle of Lewes

Some might say that a battle was inevitable. It is true that Henry’s realm was in trouble; the judicial system was corrupt, the king’s favourites and foreign relatives were becoming richer at the expense of the rest of the English nobility, the Provisions of both Oxford and Westminster were agreed to and withdrawn at will depending on whether those in power stood to gain or lose, and fighting within the baronial and ruling classes was making things even worse.

The coronation of Henry III, from a medieval illuminated manuscript

A baronial faction in opposition to the king, led by the infamous Simon de Montfort, pressed the king time and time again to agree to the reforms they wanted to introduce in the provisions, calling parliaments to that effect and refusing financial requests until the terms of the provisions were agreed to. Henry III and Simon were both as stubborn as each other, really- as hard as Henry fought to prevent the provisions from taking effect and limiting his power, Simon was equally passionate in his refusal to relinquish the claims to land he held in France by right of his wife, the king’s sister, Eleanor, slowing down peace negotiations between England and France. The Pope himself had already declared the provisions null and void by the time January 1264 came around and the king of France, Louis IX, also declared them to be null. This decision, known as the Mise of Amiens, caused a great deal of unrest that led to a battle a few months later.

The Pope confirmed the Mise of Amiens in March 1264, when both the baronial and royalist forces were making trouble in England. Simon had the loyalty of the Londoners, who destroyed a property belonging to Richard, Earl of Cornwall and the king’s brother. His sons were in the Midlands and Wales raising rebellion, and Simon could also count on the loyalty of the earls of Gloucester and Derby. The violence and murder that took place in the capital at this time was extraordinary, with many Jews suffering murder and theft before Simon himself moved on, wanting to take control of Rochester Castle. The king raised his royal standard on April 3rd at Oxford, and soon after his forces marched on Northampton, held by Simon de Montfort the Younger. After taking the castle by siege, the royalists moved on to Leicestershire and Nottingham with the younger Simon as their prisoner. Hearing of Simon’s siege at Rochester the king travelled quickly to relieve its castellan, the Earl of Warenne. Fearing the king might make a move to take back London Simon retreated back to the capital leaving behind a small force to continue the siege at Rochester; at this time, Simon simply could not afford to lose the support of the Londoners. Henry then moved to the Cinque Ports, but was under constant threat from local archers who were loyal to Simon. The death of the king’s cook by a stray arrow on May 2nd was a shot too many, and later that day Henry had more than 300 local peasant archers beheaded in his presence. Things were coming to a head by May 11th, when the king arrived at Lewes. He was ready for battle, wearing armour every day. He installed himself in the priory of St Pancras, with Lord Edward in the castle. Simon, ready for the battle that was surely soon to take place, had raised an army of Londoners and was marching towards the royalists, setting up camp in nearby Fletching. The king had around 60,000 men to Simon’s 50,000; confident that his forces would emerge from a battle triumphant and boosted by both Edward and Richard’s refusal to come to terms, Henry refused to make peace with the opposition or accept any version of the provisions favoured by the barons. There was nothing left to do but fight.

Lord Edward, Henry’s son

In the early hours of May 14th, under the cover of darkness, Simon de Montfort’s forces moved from Fletching to Lewes, forming themselves for battle unnoticed by the royalists. He directed his men unseen, though as the morning wore on the royalists were up and forming for battle themselves. Richard of Cornwall took command of the centre, with Henry himself on his right and Lord Edward on his left. Edward faced the Londoners, who were surrounding a closed carriage in which the royalists believed Simon would be- he usually did travel this way, making it a clever trap. Edward’s forces soon destroyed the carriage, but rather than keeping to the field to win the battle outright he pursued the Londoners from the field without mercy, desperate to avenge the recent attack of his mother’s barge on the Thames, when they pelted her with missiles such as stones and rotten food. For almost four miles Edward and his men kept up the chase.

Edward’s rash move against the Londoners cost the royalists the battle. When he returned thinking he had defeated de Montfort, he found royalist men dead on the streets of Lewes as well as in the field. Others had drowned in the River Ouse trying to escape the carnage. The prince took sanctuary in the Franciscan church, while Richard of Cornwall, equally overwhelmed, hid himself in a flour mill. The king had fought bravely, beaten with swords, maces and lances and had two horses killed under him, but was also defeated. His bodyguard managed to remove him from the field and took him to Lewes priory, where he found sanctuary. Following this crushing defeat, the next day the king was forced to surrender his sword to the Earl of Gloucester. He agreed to both the provisions and the Mise of Lewes and remained in Simon’s custody, with Richard of Cornwall, Henry of Almain (Richard’s son) and Lord Edward given as hostages- Montfort’s initial threat to execute the Earl of Cornwall was abandoned. Against all odds, the baronial faction emerged from battle triumphant.

An image of Henry III sat on his throne beside Westminster Abbey (photo: British Library)

So, what now for the monarchy? Henry III was essentially a puppet, ruled by the dominant Simon. His council was appointed by the Earl of Leicester, his letters dictated by him; though Henry was kept in comfort, he was humiliated and reduced, after almost fifty years of kingship, to ‘the shadow of a name’. The queen, Eleanor of Provence, had raised an army for her husband, but a letter from Henry (almost certainly written on Simon’s say so) and bad weather prevented her invasion from taking place. The Earl of Warenne, Henry’s supporter who had held Rochester for the king, joined the queen in France. Edward lost his lands in Chester and was kept under close observation by Simon’s men. At this time, it must certainly have seemed that the monarchy would soon be a shadow of its former self, if it existed at all.

-

Further reading:

‘The First English Revolution: Henry III, Simon de Montfort and the Barons’ War’ by Dr Adrian Jobson, Bloomsbury Academic, 2012 (This is the best book about the Barons’ War money can buy, in my humble opinion!)

‘The Reign of Henry III’ by Professor D.A. Carpenter, Hambledon Continuum, 2006

H. W. Ridgeway, ‘Henry III (1207–1272)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept 2010

”The Gothic King: A Biography of Henry III’ by John Paul Davis, Peter Owen Publishing, 2013

The Creation of Anne Boleyn

Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn in ‘The Tudors’

Who was Anne Boleyn? Was she the evil, heretical, home-wrecking whore as described by Nicholas Sander, or the sainted, martyred reformer as described by John Foxe? She was, and still is, a huge figure; she is discussed at length among historical scholars and enthusiasts alike, she is the protagonist of novels, plays, films and TV programmes, the subject of many online blogs, academic theses and works of non-fiction, and still has the power to divide those who speak about her.  In The Creation of Anne Boleyn, academic Susan Bordo seeks to find the real Anne Boleyn, hidden among centuries of written works. I have followed Susan’s writing journey for a very long time- since the early days of her facebook page, in fact- and was keen to see the results of her research.

Genevieve Bujold as Anne in ‘Anne of the Thousand Days’

The first part of this book is what I would describe as biographical. The life of Anne, and to some extent Henry VIII, is studied and analysed with reference to material such as the letters of Eustace Chapuys, love letters Henry wrote to Anne during their courtship and the work of Tudor historians. This part of the book I enjoyed very much. It was interesting to read about a well-known historical person from a different point of view; the details that were picked out, her insights into the Henry’s motives and the different analyses of incidents made for a refreshing read, and it was excellent. Her discussions of gender issues and early Victorian scholarship also made for satisfying reading.

The second part of the book focuses on Anne as a character, rather than Anne the person. Various novelised Annes were discussed in this part, including Natalie Dormer’s efforts in The Tudors and Philippa Gregory’s The Other Boleyn Girl. While this discussion was enjoyable, I did find there were areas that made me uncomfortable. G. W. Bernard’s Fatal Attractions, for example, I think is treated somewhat unfairly; it is a work of scholarship, and while it is fair to say his conclusions are widely disagreed with (I disagree with a lot of them myself) I don’t think he deserves to be lumped into the same category as Philippa Gregory. It also made me uncomfortable that some of the authors discussed in this chapter were not interviewed for the book, while others were (of course, it could be that they declined to speak to the author). The author’s discussion and conclusions about the TV series The Tudors and its accuracy were interesting- I found myself addicted to that programme a few years ago, and her thoughts about it, to me, were fair. I am also a fan of the film Anne of the Thousand Days, so the discussion of this film and the snippets from an interview with Genevieve Bujold were most enjoyable. Who is Genevieve’s ideal Anne? Her answer made me smile.

On the whole, this was a good analysis of both Anne the real person and Anne the character, and I enjoyed reading the book. If you have a keen interest in Anne, Henry and the early to mid Tudors, or an interest in the deconstruction of a well known historical personality, then this is a book for you.

-

This is a review of the hardback of edition of ‘The Creation of Anne Boleyn’, published by Houghton Miffin Harcourt in 2013. ISBN 978-0-547-32818-8

Nineteenth Century Signs: Guest Post by Karen James

Today I am pleased to be able to share this guest post by Karen James, which is a short history of the use of signs in nineteenth century Europe. Over to Karen!

-

The History of Nineteenth Century Signs

 

The majority of the earliest pre 19th century commercial signs originated in Europe and included symbols and emblems relating to the goods or trades on offer. They were generally mounted on poles or painted on boards that were hung from buildings.  Symbolic signs were essential in this age as few could read.  Some emblems representing certain trades remain today.  The red and white pole of the barber shop remains from the days when barbers were also surgeons with the red and white colouring suggesting blood and bandages.  Then there is the emblem of the three gold balls, derived from the Medici banking family coat of arms that represents a pawn shop.  

 

Flat signs took over

Gradually flat signs with letters or boards mounted onto the building walls began to overtake the hanging symbolic signs.  Hanging signs were viewed as safety hazards and in 1762 in the wake of several accidents with trade signs falling down, a proclamation was issued ordering the removal of hanging signs in the City of London.  In 1763 there was a similar decree in the City of Westminster and apart from remaining over public houses; this form of street art very suddenly disappeared.

 

In the 19th century the fascia or signboard sign were the most common form of signage.  The boards located above the shop front only gave a narrow area for the name of the business and the street number.  If more text was needed on the sign then similar to fascia signs, larger boards could be located across the upper levels of the building.  If the signs were painted on the walls, then could cover several stories.  The buildings became the backdrop of the signs themselves that depicted images of scenes, products and people.

 

Standing out from the crowd

Also becoming more popular were signs on various shaped plaques that could be fixed and easily removed from walls. These were particularly useful in an age when tenants were able to move from property to property, taking their signs with them wherever they set up business.  Gold leaf signs, painted signs and signs that were etched on glass windows and doors became common.  In the latter end of the century and into the 20th century porcelain enamel signs were popular as were those carved from stone or wood on institutional buildings.  

 In an increasingly competitive world, shutters and window shades provided the perfect location for additional advertising space as did shop awnings.  Flags could be hung from upper levels and banners could stretch across roads.  As the century came to an end, buildings had become larger and taller as did the signs.  The larger signs were also necessary so they could easily be seen as transport developed and people began moving faster.

-

This post was written by Karen James, prolific writer for Business and Marketing sectors including sign & banner manufacturer Borney UK.

A Day on a Nineteenth Century High Street

On May 18th 1900, British troops fighting in the Boer War in South Africa relieved the besieged town of Mafeking. The celebration in Britain and the pride in the Imperialist troops was huge

A few months ago, in the midst of a very snowy spring, I received an email from the lovely people at ArtFund offering me a one year membership card which would allow me to get free or reduced-fee entry into over 200 museums and galleries across the UK, as well as cut-price entry to many major exhibitions, subscription to their Art Quarterly magazine, and invitations to many special events and lectures. Never one to turn my nose up at a great opportunity (or a bargain!), I grabbed onto membership with both hands. The card arrived and sat patiently while I waited for the weather to pick up. It is always in my bag, in case the opportunity to use it should arise.

This bank holiday weekend my children were off school, my partner was off work and I was ahead with my university work, and (in a rare surprise for British bank holidays) the sun was shining beautifully. It seemed the perfect time to use my ArtFund card for the first time. The place we chose to visit was Ironbridge in Shropshire; more specifically, the Victorian Town in Blists Hill.

Some people that are familiar with me away from this blog (twitter, facebook, real life) may know that I actually grew up near Ironbridge. A trip to Blists Hill for me, then, was an opportunity to show my children something I loved when I was a child (my eight year old son actually asked if I was a child in the Victorian times- I’m not that old, son!). I was really excited to visit again after such a long time.

Blists Hill is a fantastic museum in that it is beautifully maintained, wonderfully laid out, brilliant fun and authentic to the last detail. The first thing to do when you arrive is head to Lloyds Bank to exchange your Great British Pounds for Farthings and Sixpences.The high street is magical; there is a tap room, post office, chemist (with an extremely scary looking dentist’s chair), a candle maker, a print shop, a baker, a butcher, a grocer and a farmer, among other things. The chip shop serves traditional food wrapped in newspaper and- a personal favourite in our party- the sweet shop serves boiled sweets by weight.

It’s not just the sights that are terrific at Blists Hill- the atmosphere matches them. The staff are all in period costume, knowledgable in the field they are ‘working in’ and friendly. The singing of the men from the public house makes the whole high street come to life, there are small steam engines puffing around the complex on which the children can ride, and there are pigs and chickens kept in some of the gardens. The street smells Victorian as well as looking it, with coal fires and candle wax burning. Every room has a portrait or photograph of the Queen, prince Albert and / or her children, and there are newspapers around giving us the ‘latest’ from the Boer War in South Africa or political events in the UK. The museum also includes the now-disused blast furnaces used in the iron trade of the nineteenth century, a shop for refreshments which serves Victorian beverages and a small fairground with a shooting game and a ‘chairs’ ride.

Blists Hill Blast Furnaces

Blists Hill is a great day out in its own right, but is also close enough to the other Ironbridge Gorge sites to make a real day of it. Best of all, an ArtFund pass will get you free entry into all the other Ironbridge sites as well as Blists Hill.

-

The ArtFund National Art Pass is available as a single, double or family package. More information can be found here.

Information on Blists Hill Victorian Town open air museum, their special events, and other sites in the Ironbridge Gorge museums can be found here.

The Gothic King

Over the past few years, I have read plenty of books and articles about King Henry III of England, the people around him and the time he lived in, especially those that discuss the period of the Second Barons’ Wars. The time is fascinating to me, and I cannot get enough of it. I often thought to myself what a shame it is- was- that no chronological narrative of Henry’s reign had been written by a modern author. For all the masses of analysis and contextualisation there is, there was nothing that just told us what happened in the right order.

Well, no more, readers! Last August a book titled The Gothic King suddenly appeared in my amazon recommendations, penned by historical biographer John Paul Davis. Here it was, at last, the book the life and study of Henry III needed. I immediately pre-ordered, then waited extremely patiently for a little over nine months for it to arrive.

Was it worth the wait? Absolutely. At just over 260 pages long, this is the life of Henry, in order, in a nutshell. Davis has engaged with his subject well, researching thoroughly using both primary source material and the work of recent scholars. In the introduction to the book it is made clear that the book is intended to put things in order rather than analyse in depth, which makes the book clear, concise and very easy to read. Many of the author’s points are referenced, and the end notes and bibliography are well presented. (The bibliography reads like one of my bookcases, in fact!)

Given the fifty six years Henry was king and the intention of the book to remain readable, many of the events are recounted with the finer points missing. Though this on a few occasions made me look twice, I can understand the need to omit some detail on account of the length of the text and the fact that someone new to Henry’s reign is likely to pick this book up (I hope they do!). Davis himself states in the prelude that his book “could have been at least ten times longer than it is“- how daunting that would be for a newcomer to the period! The main objective of the book, to present the reign of Henry III in the most straightforward way possible, was achieved excellently. The critical analysis in the final chapter works really well, and I have to say that chapter 11- ‘Henry the Builder’- was a personal highlight of the book.

Overall thoughts? Excellent writing, a clear concise account of what happened and when, some lovely plates of photography in the centre, short, easy to digest, fun and not overwhelming. An excellent addition to any medieval bookshelf.

-

This is a review of the first paperback edition of The Gothic King, published by Peter Owen Publishing in 2013. ISBN 978-0-7206-1480-0

“He was looking as cheerful as any man could in that condition…”

There is a pub at Tower Hill in London named ‘Hung, Drawn and Quartered’; I went there last year with my friend for some dinner (they make excellent pies, if you’re ever down that way). On the side of the pub is a sign, showing a quote from the seventeenth century diarist Samuel Pepys:

“I went to see Major General Harrison hung, drawn and quartered. He was looking as cheerful as any man could in that condition.”

What an interesting and strangely amusing quote, I thought, as I sat in my hotel room later that day. I wondered who Major General Harrison was, and why he was being executed. Earlier this year I studied the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, or English Civil war if you prefer, at university, and he came up again. He played a significant role in this period in history, and his role in the regicide of January 1649 would eventually lead to his downfall and this rather memorable quote.

Thomas Harrison was the son of Robert Harrison, a butcher from Newcastle Under Lyme in Staffordshire, born in 1606 and educated at the local grammar school. Early in his adulthood, he became clerk to a lawyer at Clifford’s Inn, London. He was puritan in his religious beliefs, becoming more and more fanatical as he got older. In 1646 he married a woman named Catherine, though sadly none of their children survived childhood.

The reigning monarch, Charles I, was often in conflict with his parliament. During the struggles, Thomas sided with the Parliamentarians. He became a soldier in the parliamentarian army, serving first under the Earl of Essex; later transferring the the army of the Earl of Manchester. Thomas fought in many battles, including the battles of Marston Moor and Newbury in 1644. He was an effective and successful soldier who supported Oliver Cromwell passionately. In 1645, his regiment transferred to Cromwell’s New Model Army and Thomas became a full time soldier in the parliamentarian forces. His career under Oliver Cromwell was highly successful, and he was eventually promoted to Major General.

Charles I was captured and imprisoned in 1646 by the parliamentarian forces (this was a very busy time in British history, and I have gone into details in my post about King Charles himself- click here). Around this time, Thomas was appointed to Long Parliament as an MP for Wendover. He was involved in the negotiations and debates in parliament, trying to decide what to do with Charles I for the sake of England’s peace. In 1648, before any concrete plans for England’s future were made, Charles I made a secret treaty with the Scottish parliament and a second civil war broke out. Thomas was badly wounded in Appleby during this new wave of conflict and returned home to London. His regiment once again defeated Royalist forces and Charles I, instead of possibly being restored with limited powers as a monarch, was to be tried for high treason.

Charles I- King of England and Scotland

Thomas was in charge of the escort that brought Charles to trial at Whitehall in January 1649, which meant by this time he had presumably recovered from his injuries. Thomas also sat as a judge during the king’s trial and was one of the men that signed his death warrant when he was found guilty of high treason. Charles was executed outside the Banqueting House in London on the morning of January 30th, 1649; Thomas was present at both the king’s execution and funeral. England and Wales were now under the rule of the Commonwealth. The Rump Parliament, which was royalist, was still active but not overly powerful. Charles II, the executed king’s son, saw himself as rightful ruler of England and Wales and was declared and crowned King in Scotland.

In 1650 Thomas was appointed “President of the Commission for the Propagation of the Gospel in Wales“; a job he took very seriously indeed, reportedly acting very severely towards the people he dealt with. Thomas also became involved with the Fifth Monarchists; a religious sect who believed the execution of Charles I symbolised that rule by human beings was coming to an end, and that Christ would soon return. In spite of his reputation as a religious extremist, Thomas was nominated to the Council of State in February 1651. In September that year, Charles II had raised a Royalist army and marched into England from Scotland. He was defeated by the  parliamentary army at the Battle of Worcester, fled to Boscobel House in Shropshire, then into exile on the Continent.

In 1653 Rump Parliament was dissolved, and in its place a parliament based on the Old Testament “Parliament of Saints” was set up. Thomas was supportive of this parliament, he and many of his fellow Fifth Monarchists were elected. This new parliament did not last long, though; it was soon surrendered to Oliver Cromwell and he ran the Commonwealth as Lord Protector. Thomas refused to support Oliver during his reign as Lord Protector, which ran from 1653-1658, and as a result was forced to leave parliament and dismissed his positions in the army, and was barred from being re-elected to parliament. During Cromwell’s reign as Lord Protector, Thomas was imprisoned four times for plotting to overthrow the Protectorate and reinstate parliament. When Thomas’ plans failed, he retired to his family home in Newcastle Under Lyme, living there quietly during the remainder of the protectorate. On the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658, he refused to involve himself in the political situation. He did not support parliament, Richard Cromwell or the restoration of Charles II.

Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660

Charles II was restored as England’s monarch in January 1660. Despite the danger this placed him in, Thomas refused to go into exile, standing by what he had done and what he believed in. In May 1660, before Charles II had arrived in London, the arrest and imprisonment of Thomas was ordered, so he was taken to the Tower of London to await his fate. He did not face trial, instead Thomas was found guilty of the murder of King Charles I in early October 1660 by Act of Attainder and was sentenced to execution.

Thomas Harrison was the first regicide to suffer execution for the death of the ‘martyred monarch’. He was taken to Charing Cross on the morning of October 13th, 1660. He emptied his pockets of all his money to pay his executioner, then was hung in a noose and strangled until he was half dead. While on the table to suffer his ‘drawing’, or disembowelment, there is a story that he punched his executioner in the face, resulting in a sooner than usual beheading to end his life. This story does not appear in any contemporary sources, however, so is likely to be a legend. Charles II was apparently among the witnesses to Thomas’ execution.

-

Further reading:

“Cromwell to Cromwell: Reformation to Civil War” by John Schofield, The History Press, 2011

“Cromwell: Our Chief of Men” by Antonia Fraser, Phoenix Books, 2008

“The English Civil Wars” by Blair Worden, Phoenix Books, 2009

“The Diary of Samuel Pepys” by Samuel Pepys, kindle edition

Anne Boleyn’s Alleged Lovers

Anne Boleyn, painted by an unknown artist

The fall of Anne Boleyn is a rather extraordinary episode in English history. After waiting for so many years to make her his wife, Henry VIII approved the execution of Anne for treason and adultery after just three years. She was found guilty of having not one but five lovers, one of them her brother; she was also accused of high treason and plotting the king’s death in order to marry one of these lovers. Harsh charges indeed, and charges that many people believe today to be false. (Contrary to popular belief, Anne was never accused of witchcraft.)

What happened between Henry and Anne that caused their relationship to break down so dramatically? If the charges against Anne are believed to be false, then something must have happened. Anne had many enemies at court, was known to have a sharp tongue and a bad temper, she had displaced the beloved queen Catherine and her daughter, Mary, she was friendly with the men in her household and above all, had not had a son with the king. None of these incidences in isolation, I think, will have had such a dramatic effect on Anne’s life, but put them together and the result was a swift, bloody downfall.

When Anne Boleyn fell, she took five men with her- her brother George, Francis Weston, William Brereton, Mark Smeaton and Henry Norris. The rise and fall of George Boleyn I have already discussed (click here), so today I want to have a look at the four lesser-known courtiers.

David Alpey as Mark Smeaton in Showtime’s TV series “The Tudors”

The first person to be swept up in this court coup was Mark Smeaton, a musician in Queen Anne’s household. Mark’s origins are unknown, though it is believed he was Flemish. He was a skilled man, singing in the household of Cardinal Wolsey before joining the royal court and could play the organ, violin, lute and virginals beautifully. Though he was from humble origins Mark wished to be treated as a gentleman, attracting criticism for having ideas ‘above his station’ and overreaching himself. Serving in the royal household, however, required a certain amount of manners and sophistication and I find it hard to criticise Mark for wanting to better himself. Popular culture often portrays Mark as homosexual, yet there is no evidence for this.

On April 30th 1536 Mark Smeaton was invited to the home of Thomas Cromwell, one of the king’s most trusted ministers. There, he was suddenly arrested, accused of having had sex with Queen Anne. At first, Mark denied the accusation, but eventually confessed his guilt. How this confession was obtained we do not know; one source tells us Mark had a knotted rope placed over his eye, which was then tightened to cause appalling pain, another source tells us Mark was racked. The sources of this episode are not always to be trusted, however; another one tells us Anne used to hide Mark in her marmalade cupboards, releasing him to join her in bed when she thought it was safe (she would ask her trusted lady for marmalade, apparently, and the lady would bring her Mark- I have no words). This is an interesting confession for me, mainly because I believe it was false- was it wishful thinking on the part of a man who was enamoured with the queen, desperation, or genuine guilt? Regardless of how the confession was obtained, Mark said he had slept with the queen, and incriminated the other men involved in Anne’s downfall when he did. He was transferred to the Tower of London to await trial while the other men were rounded up.

William Brereton, played by James Gilbert in the Showtime TV series “The Tudors”. The programme portrays William very inaccurately; he was not a Catholic assassin against Anne Boleyn, he was not a “soldier of Christ” for Pope Paul, he did not attempt to shoot Anne during her coronation procession and he did not confess to adultery with the queen

William Brereton was one of eight sons born to Sir Randall Brereton, a knight in the service of king Henry VII, and Eleanor, his wife. Four of William’s brothers joined the church; he and three others followed their father’s footsteps and entered royal service. By 1524 William was a trusted member of the king’s court and was a Groom in the privy chamber, and in 1529 married the king’s second cousin Elizabeth Savage. He was always supportive of the king’s annulment of his first marriage and the rise of Anne Boleyn, and as a result of this loyalty William was granted many lands in Cheshire and North Wales, and was knighted during Anne’s coronation celebrations. There was a groom present at the secret wedding ceremony between Henry and Anne, and there is every possibility this groom was William.

As popular as he was with the king and queen, William had made an enemy in Thomas Cromwell. When one of William’s retainers died in 1534, he placed blame on a local gentleman, John ap Gryffith Eton. John was acquitted and released following a trial, however William had him re-arrested, found guilty and hanged. This happened against Thomas Cromwell’s wishes, as he had worked very hard to save John from the gallows.

Henry Norris was born around 1482, joined the royal court as young man and became a firm friend of Henry VIII. The two men had plenty in common, they played cards, tennis, and jousted together, and Henry was present at the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520. The king trusted Henry deeply, appointing him Groom of the Stool in 1526 (the role that gave him the most intimate access to the king) and Chief Gentleman of the Privy Chamber. Henry gained land for his loyal service, was completely supportive of the king’s marriage to Anne Boleyn in 1533, and was knighted as part of her coronation celebrations.

Francis Weston, who was born in 1511 to Sir Richard Weston and his wife Anne, was also a member of the king’s inner circle. He was appointed a gentleman of the privy chamber in 1525, married a woman named Anne Pickering in 1530, and also was knighted as part of Queen Anne’s coronation celebrations.

Sir Henry Norris, played by Stephen Hogan in the Showtime TV series “The Tudors”

William and Henry, along with George Boleyn, Sir Richard Page and Thomas Wyatt, were the first to be arrested and imprisoned in the Tower, accused of treason and adultery with the queen. Not one of them confessed to their supposed guilt- in fact they all passionately argued for their innocence. Mark Smeaton, however, did not retract his confession, and soon enough the queen arrived at the Tower too, aware of what she was accused of. She was lodged in the Queen’s Apartments, where she had stayed just a few years earlier while awaiting her coronation, and not the dungeon she thought she would be taken to. Anne must have been under extreme pressure, wondering why she had been accused of the things she had. She began to recall conversations she had had in the past, and a few of the things she said incriminated Francis Weston further. As reported by Master Kingston, the constable of the Tower:

“She more feared Weston, for on Whitsunday Tuesday last Weston told her that Norris came more unto her chambers for her than for Madge Shelton.”

“She had spoke to him, because he did love her kinswoman Ms Shelton and that he loved not his wife. Weston replied that he loved one in her house more than both Madge and his wife- the queen.”

Francis was now transported to the Tower. Like William and Henry he confessed to nothing but his innocence, but to no avail. The confession of Smeaton and the words of the queen were evidence enough to bring him to trial, and the financial support he had received from Anne in the early days of his marriage was also implied to mean more than was intended.

Portrait of Francis Weston by an unknown artist

On May 12th 1536 Francis, Mark, William and Henry all faced trial at Westminster, and all the men except Mark pleaded not guilty to the charges of adultery with the queen and treason. Evidence was produced for the alleged offences but it was weak, to say the least; in Henry Norris’ case, for example, he was accused of committing adultery with the queen on the sixth and twelfth October 1533, at Westminster, yet Anne was actually at Greenwich at this time, recovering from the birth of Princess Elizabeth on September seventh.The caveat ‘and divers other days and places, before and after‘ was crucial in securing the conviction. Was the evidence doctored, or made up? Or was it simply too difficult for the prosecutors to recall exact dates? Despite any arguments against the reliability of the evidence the men were all found guilty, and were sentenced to suffer traitor’s deaths. The sentences were commutted to beheading- a much more merciful execution at the time, which was usually reserved for the nobility. The trial of Anne took place a few days later, followed by George’s. The trials were arranged very cleverly- George was guilty because Anne was guilty, and Anne was guilty because the first four men were guilty. It would have been impossible to find either George or Anne not guilty without reprieving the people before them. Sir Richard Page and Thomas Wyatt were cleared of the charges against them.

After his conviction Francis’ family petitioned the king, offering him money for Francis’ reprieve. Francis, because his father was still alive, did not have a lot to leave for the crown by way of land or money; people convicted of treason had all their possessions forfeited to the crown, and Francis had nothing worth forfeiting. The king refused the family’s request. In his last days in the Tower, Francis wrote a letter of apology to his parents.

George, Henry, William, Francis and Mark all met their end on May 17th, 1536 at Tower Hill. The beheadings were completed without any major trauma, and the men were taken for burial at the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London. Anne went to her scaffold two days later. Mark Smeaton never took back his confession, which many people, contemporaries included, believed to be false. Francis Weston departed with words of warning to the crowd at Tower Hill, saying “for I had thought to have lived in abomination yet these twenty or thirty years and then to have made amends“. William Brereton’s last words are recorded as to have been “the cause whereof I die, judge not. But if you judge, judge the best.” William’s wife Elizabeth seemed sure of his innocence. In her will, 9 years later, she left her son “one bracelet of gold, which was the last token his father sent me.”

One of the memorial plates at Tower Hill execution site. None of the men who fell in May 1536 are remembered by name here (image my own)

So what do I think? I think it woud have been extremely difficult for Anne, as queen, to take one lover, never mind five. I don’t believe for a moment that she committed adultery or incest. I do think, however, that she was not without fault, and that perhaps her manner worked against her. Did Henry believe she was guilty? Perhaps he did. I don’t like to put thoughts into people’s heads, but then I can’t imagine anyone beheading all those people on a whim. May they all rest in peace.

-

Further reading:

“The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn” by Eric Ives, second edition, 2005

“Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions” by G. W. Bernard, 2011

“The Boleyns: The Rise and Fall of a Tudor Family” by David Loades, 2011

“1536- The Year That Changed Henry VIII” by Suzannah Lipscomb, 2009

“Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII” by Dr David Starkey, 2004

“Cromwell to Cromwell: Reformation to Civil War” by Dr John Schofield, 2011

“House of Treason: The Rise and Fall of the Howard Family in Tudor England” by Robert Hutchinson, 2009

“The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown” by Claire Ridgway, kindle edition, 2012