Helen Castor's 'She Wolves'

For those who enjoyed Helen Castor's book 'She Wolves - England's Early Queens', the BBC has her presenting 3 documentaries on the subject.  They will be shown on BBC 4, on Wednesdays, starting Wednesday, March 7th, at 9pm.  The first show will feature Matilda and Eleanor of Acquitaine.  I'm looking forward particularly to Isabella, Edward II's queen, being featured.

So, what was the truth about Braveheart?

Yes, it's full of inaccuracies!  Channel 5 went to work on Mel Gibson's 'epic', although Gibson doesn't get all the blame.  It all stems from an American visiting Scotland with the surname Wallace and becoming intrigued about William Wallace.  He then set out to write a book from a human viewpoint, not a historical one - yes, he really said that!   

The title 'Braveheart' comes from a poem written by 'Blind Harry' in 1470 - 165 years after Wallace's death.  The purpose for the poem?  Propaganda.  The Scots were worried James III was becoming too friendly with the English, and so looked back in history to find a hero for an independent Scotland - and Blind Harry - who wasn't blind - chose Wallace.  The Bailey family sponsored 'Blind Harry', and he wrote one of their ancestors into the poem as Wallace's wife.  It seems no-one knows who Wallace was married to.

The blue woad and kilts worn by Gibson's army were easily dismissed, as was the alleged 'Wallace sword' which turned out to be made of 3 separate weapons moulded together.  The weapons were also dissected.  Particularly interesting was the testing of the warbows from Edward Ist's army.  Wallace's army would never have been able to withstand the onslaught from the English army.  The battle of Stirling bridge was an opportunistic victory, the result of an ambush by Wallace and his fellow leader Robert of Lundy, who later died of his wounds - hence he wasn't chosen as the hero of the poem by 'Blind Harry'.  Wallace was not an 'ordinary' man, but a younger son of a knight, who first appears in a document in an act of theft. 

As for Wallace being the father of Edward III, this was scoffed at for obvious reasons - Isabella was a child, still living in France.  This easy dismissal meant there was no mention of Edward II or Piers/Phillip being thrown out of the window.  Oh well......

Wallace did his best to evade capture - and you can hardly blame him as he knew what fate would await him.  He fled to France to try and persuade Philip IV to help him and involve the Pope, which failed. 

The only shock for me was that this film won 5 Oscars - yes, really!  Including one for best film. 

The 'truth' about 'Braveheart'

On Tuesday, February 21st, channel in the UK is showing a documentary about the truth behind Mel Gibson's (dire, IMO), 'Braveheart'.  I hadn't realised how influential this film was until Kathryn - on her marvellous Edward II blog - revealed that 'William Wallace was the father of Edward III' was one of the most popular searches on her website.  Just a simple check on the dates easily proves this a myth, but unfortunately, Gibson's slander has become accepted as truth for some cinema-goers.  I've no idea what this documentary is like, but I'm looking forward to it.  I'm wondering if Piers will get a mention, as in 'Braveheart' he has morphed into 'Phillip' and is thrown out of a window by Edward Ist - as if!  I've only ever sat through 'Braveheart' once completely, and that was a big effort on my part, and then watched clips of it.  It is strewn with errors - even the Beefeaters at the Tower of London mock it - and I just wonder whether a 60 minute documentary will be long enough to expose every mistake.  I'll report back on the documentary after it's screened.

Here's a link to Kathryn's brilliant and well-researched article on the slander of Edward II and his children -

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2011/02/edward-ii-and-his-children-and-why.html

Valentine Greeting

I have shamefully neglected this blog for so long!  I've started 3 Piers-related posts and abandonned them all.  But as today is Valentine's Day, I can always rely on The Valentine Generator http://dagblog.com/humor-satire/valentine-generator-452

So here is Edward II's valentine greeting for Piers!

To my Scrumptious Gascon Piers,
You are the jewel of my crown. I want to joust with you more than any other lance in the whole court.
The first time we thatched, I felt in my splendid fingers, and I was so overwhelmed that I could barely thatch. I knew that we would throb together for years.
Whenever you tease, it makes me swoon gracefully and spend like a parliament .
I will toast with you provocatively until the treasury empties and the country revolts.
Splendid Valentine's Day!
Love, your devoted King

Not quite the best books of 2011………

I’ve been meaning to post my top ten books of 2011, but after much searching of my book cases, I have to say I don’t have a ‘best 10 books’, so what follows is a mixture of the best, adequate, interesting and ‘how did this get written’ review of books I’ve read in 2011.

1.        Best book of 2011 was undoubtedly ‘Fatal Colours’  by George Goodwin.  There were several books released about the battle of Towton in 2011, but Goodwin’s book gripped me.  It set the scene for the so-called ‘Wars of the Roses’ origins, which is open to debate.   The chapter on the possible schizophrenia of Henry VI was revealing and sympathetic.   The analysis of the battle is first rate.  A definite read for anyone interested in this topic.

2.       Best fiction book has to be Susan Higginbotham’s ‘The Queen of Last Hopes’.  As in her previous novels, once I started reading it, I couldn’t put it down.  It gives a very sympathetic portrayal of a much maligned Queen, Margaret of Anjou.  Her struggle to support her husband and her son is at times heart-breaking, and there is a very charismatic portrayal of Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.   To say Margaret lead an eventful life is an understatement, and Susan Higginbotham covers all stages of her life.  I’m amazed she lived as long as she did.

3.       After all the books on Henry VIII and the other Tudors , most notably Anne Boleyn, Giles Tremlett’s ‘Catherine of Aragon’ attempts to remind us of Catherine’s life.  Tremlett  is undoubtedly on ‘Catherine’s side’, and examines documents in Spain dating from the time of ‘the great matter’, the divorce.  Tremlett makes the claim this information has rarely been seen, and while it is interesting to read these documents, they are unsurprisingly pro-Catherine and not real ‘proof’ that she was telling the truth about her wedding night to Prince Arthur.  It is from these documents that the image of the ‘sickly prince’ emerges. Tremlett also irks me by referring to Anne Boleyn’s sharp tongue, nagging ways etc. He also constantly calls her Boleyn – but never refers to Catherine as ‘Aragon’.  Just lay your cards on the table and say you are pro-Catherine and anti-Anne Boleyn, and make no claim to be impartial is my advice.  Pro-Catherine fans will obviously love it.

4.       I am unashamedly pro-Anne Boleyn, and after the glut of books that came out in 2010, 2011 was a leaner year.  I will buy any book relating to Anne Boleyn and her family.   I was delighted that Paul Friedman’s Anne Boleyn, first published in 1884, was re-issued.  It was once THE book to read on Anne Boleyn and I was so happy to finally have my own copy.

5.       Another Anne Boleyn book was ‘Anne Boleyn in her own words etc’ edited by Elizabeth Norton.  It contains written accounts of contemporaries on Anne Boleyn plus any documents pertaining to her.  A worthy addition to my collection.

6.       I have Robert Hutchinson’s previous books on Thomas Cromwell, the House of Treason (The Howard family) and ‘Henry VIII’s last days’.  These books are interesting and I tend to dip into them every so often rather than read them from cover to cover.  ‘The Young Henry VIII’ follows closely on the heels of David Starkey’s ‘Young Henry’, and both books reveal very little that I didn’t already know about Henry.  One book on the young Henry VIII was quite enough, and in my opinion, no-one can better Starkey.  I would never have bought it had I not seen it in the ‘bargain basement’.

7.       ‘The Boleyns’ by David Loades is a definite must to find out about Anne Boleyn’s early family and what happened to them after her fall, particularly those who survived and flourished in her daughter Elizabeth’s reign.

8.       While Loades dealt with the Boleyn family, Alison Weir centred on Mary Boleyn – and it must be said, there is very little to be said on Mary Boleyn.  There is very little evidence that survives on Mary, certainly not enough to fill a biography, so we are left with a lot of supposition – what if?  maybe,  this could be…. etc.  For some strange reason there is a picture of Francis 1^st’s queen, Claude on the cover – very bizarre.  The title ‘Mary Boleyn, the infamous whore’ is obviously meant to grab attention.  In all honesty, does Mary warrant a biography?   In my opinion, no – that she was Anne’s sister and the mistress of Henry VIII is all the important information that one needs to know about her.   Even if Henry VIII had fathered any of her children, they played no part in the Tudor dynasty.   I have not yet bought ‘Bessie Blount’, a biography on Henry VIII’s mistress and mother of his bastard son Henry Fitzroy, and to be honest, can’t see myself doing so as I suspect there is even less information on her than Mary Boleyn.

9.       ‘The Winter King’ by Thomas Penn is a welcome biography on Henry VII, who is so often over-looked.  I first thought it was a novel – it certainly looks like one and the blurb at times read like one.  I’ve only just started it but am enjoying it.

10.   Erm, there isn’t a number 10!  There’s been a real lack of Medieval  books for me this year.  The Tudors continue to dominate, and even the books out this year are among some of the weakest.  Even novelwise, there was nothing that caught my eye.  Please someone write a half-decent novel on Piers Gaveston.

Tis the season to be jolly.....

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! 

The Lion in Winter

Currently showing at the Haymarket Theatre is a production of 'The Lion in Winter', with Robert Lindsay and Joanna Lumley.  I had the good fortune to go and see this play at the weekend.  I've always been a big fan of the film, and just had to get tickets for this production.  A feuding family at Christmas, with so much intrigue and Machiavellian plotting, the play sees King Henry II of England spending Christmas with his estranged wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, his mistress Alais, sister of the King of France and betrothed to his son Richard, and his three sons - Richard, Geoffrey and John.  Henry has had Eleanor imprisoned for a number of years, and has only allowed her to join him at Christmas to discuss his choice of successor.  The three brothers fight for the attention of their parents.  Richard seems to be Eleanor's favourite, whilst a petulant and pouting John is his father's favourite.  Geoffrey complains bitterly about being over-looked by both his parents.  They scheme and plot and seek to out-maneuver each other.  I particularly like the portrayal of John as the spoiled brat of the family, constantly reminding his siblings that he is his father's favourite.    There's some wonderful  witty dialogue between the characters.  Below are some of my favourite lines.

Henry - Time hasn't done a thing but wrinkle you.

Eleanor - It hasn't done that.  I have borne six girls, five boys and thirty-one connubial years of you.


Henry - I'll never let you loose.  You led too many civil wars against me.

Eleanor - And I damn near won the last one.  Still, as long as I get trotted out for Christmas courts and state occasions now and then.

During a meeting with his mother, Richard says 'Is this an audience, a goodnight kiss with cookies or an ambush?'

As Henry and John start to argue, Eleanor says 'Did you rehearse all this or are you improvising?'

After a huge argument between the family, Geoffrey tries to reassure John.

Geoffrey - 'John, use your head.  Would I betray you?'

John - 'Why not?  Everyone else does.'

Geoffrey - 'John, I only turned on you to get their confidence.  It worked, they trust me.'

John -  'I tell you, your leg could fall off at the pelvis and I wouldn't trust the stump to bleed'.

And perhaps the best line is Eleanor's line in scene 5, when John panics when he sees Richard has a knife.

Eleanor - 'Of course he has a knife.  He always has a knife.  We all have knives.  It's 1183'.

There are just so many witty lines, laced with spite and treachery, and all played out as the family prepare for Christmas. 

Henry II's family may be dysfunctional, but just imagine the play that begs to be written - Christmas at the court of Edward II, with his wife Isabella - and Piers Gaveston.  That's one play I'd love to see!