T
here is a very interesting topic being discussed in some of
my favourite blogs, started by Kathryn at her brilliantly researched Edward II,
and also at the Thomas Cromwell Experience and Neville Feast. It’s all about ‘Don't defame the dead’. Edward
II, Thomas Cromwell and Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick have all been much maligned in
fiction and non-fiction. It can be
easily done because you cannot libel the dead.
And once a historical person is given a reputation, it can sometimes be
very hard to shake the perception.
Those with an interest in history will I’m sure make the effort to check
so-called facts, sources and interpretations.
Those who merely like a good story, probably won’t, unless their interest
is sparked. A friend of mine always
reads the top sellers, whatever their content, and I could hardly believe what
she was trying to tell me about Anne Boleyn after reading ‘The Other Boleyn
Girl’ by Phillippa Gregory. I just cannot
believe that anyone would think Anne guilty of the charge of incest. There are so many biographies on Anne, and
almost all find her innocent of the charges brought against her – but a work of
fiction being quoted at me as evidence of her character was shocking! Even
worse was the film that followed, which those with little knowledge took as ‘the
truth’. You could say that Gregory is
entitled to artistic licence and to interpret the history of Anne as she wants,
but when I see Gregory on tv speaking as a ‘historian’, the line becomes
blurred for me.
I must admit I read very little historical fiction these
days. The main problem is time, and also
that there is so much ‘bad’ historical fiction out there. In my early teens, way before the internet, I relied on my local
library, and read every Jean Plaidy novel I could get my hands on. I always read non-fiction books on the
Tudors, but any non-Tudor Plaidy novels I read would always spark an interest
and then I’d look for factual books and check her historical interpretation and
understanding. Plaidy relied on Agnes
Strickland’s ‘Lives of the Queens of England’, of which there was a complete reference
set in my local library and I spent many a rainy day in school holidays
ploughing through the volumes. Of
course a lot of what Strickland wrote has been challenged, and rightly so. I found Plaidy’s novels inoffensive, even
when I disagreed with her interpretation.
It was having read Plaidy’s ‘Follies of the King’ which ignited my
interest in Piers Gaveston, although it was very difficult to find any history
bios on Edward II then, let alone Piers.
I read many fiction books at that time, and was used to the
portrayal of Edward and Piers as being
weak, Edward being more or less stupid and being led by the nose by Piers, who
was always arrogant and vain and annoyed the hell out of a neglected/vengeful
Isabella and paid the price.
Today’s historical fiction goes much further than Plaidy
ever did. Some of the things I’ve read
have bordered on the ridiculous, the bizarre and downright insulting. In some novels I’ve read how Isabella was
abused by her brothers as a child, Piers
was a high – or even low – class whore, Edward was unbelievably stupid and a
rapist who didn’t love his children. It’s
the portrayal of Piers as a prostitute I most object to. There is NO evidence for this. Piers is praised in the chronicles of the
time as being graceful, well-mannered and chivalrous who actively took part in
warfare or tournaments and was seen as a fit companion for the Prince of Wales
by no less a person than his father, Edward Ist. So, whenever Piers is down on his luck, short
of money etc, does he enter a rich tournament?
Ask Edward for some money? Or even
‘steal’ Edward’s wedding presents? Ask his family for money? Sell
his horse or fine clothes? Indulge in a
bit of piracy? No, he sleeps with anyone
for whatever coin he can get. Apparently this is all to do with him being
raped as a child. Poor Piers ends up
getting raped by Edward and Warwick’s men when he is imprisoned in the same novel. I wonder where the source for this evidence
comes from? Is there a book out there
entitled ‘Knighthood and Prostitution in Medieval times’? or maybe ‘Warfare and whoring’?
The nature of the relationship between Piers and Edward II
may never be known – unless Piers’ diary is secretly out there somewhere. It is open to interpretation by
novelists. But as the novelist Susan
Higginbotham said on Kathryn’s blog, and I hope she doesn’t mind me re-posting
it here –
I think there's responsible gap-filling and irresponsible
gap-filling. For instance, it's beyond dispute that something happened to
Richard III's nephews. A novelist writing about Richard is going to have to
come up with some solution to the mystery (unless he or she chooses to leave it
unsolved, which for me as a reader would be off-putting).
But there's irresponsible gap-filling--as in a novel I read
where the author invents an episode where Lady Jane Grey is raped by her
father, and then uses this supposed rape, which is not supported by a shred of
historical evidence, to explain some of Jane's actions later in the novel.
I totally agree with what Susan is saying, and I have read
her novels and thoroughly enjoyed them, and there are times I may disagree with
her historical interpretation, but I accept why she has written it and more
importantly, I have never been offended by anything she has written.
Many thanks to Kathryn for this wonderful 'card' which I hope she doesn't mind me re-posting - it says it all for me.
