Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Edward of Lancaster's on Facebook! And Some News

Just stopping by briefly to let you know that Margaret of Anjou has allowed her son Edward of Lancaster to get his own Facebook page! Do stop by--Edward is a gregarious chap who loves the company. Thanks to Karen Clark, his wife and Neville in-laws have already stopped by. (Incidentally, his father is on Facebook also. It's turning into a regular family gathering over there.)

I'm also pleased to announce that Sourcebooks has plans to publish two future novels of mine! I have to keep mum on the subject matter for now, but it probably wouldn't be too amiss to mention the T-word. Since I turned in my Margaret of Anjou novel this week, I've been starting on the research for the next one, and I've already found all sorts of misinformation on the web about my next subject. That's promising!

11 comments:

Caroline said...

Susan, if by the T-word you mean Tudor, then I hope your research is about HVII. It would be nice to see a well-balanced, accurate, non-Ricardian portrait of him fiction . It would also be refreshing to see his relationship with EoY as based on mutual respect and affection.

Ragged Staff said...

Edward is an absolute delight, Susan!
And great news about the books. I've been saying for a long time now that the less books out there about the Tudors, the happier I'll be, but maybe I should change that to include the possibility that there might be one or two good books in the future. What's really depressing is that The Other Boleyn Girl made it into A&R's Australia's hundred favourite books list. Deeply deeply sad.

aLmYbNeNr said...

The T-word is one of my favorite words!!! Congratulations!

trish wilson said...

Sorry Sue

If it's H7 and EOY I'm already there including their meeting before Bosworth – working title ‘A rose amongst the thorns’.

Some RGs might not believe it but I'm being charitable to R3 as well. His and Anne Neville's reaction to the death of their son requires a box of Kleenex prior to reading. There's also a hilarious encounter between a very young R3 and Anthony Wydeville when a very precocious EOY asks R3 which of King Arthur's knights would he like to be and why his emblem is a boar a matter in which AW helps him out.

Yes it is possible to avoid falling into the tribal loyalty trap provided one keeps an open mind and avoids historical or should that be hysterical judgements; it does help to ask oneself ‘What was the motivation for writing this article/book?’ as some of it seems very dubious indeed. One way to get round the historians is apply the TW acid test, objectivity, curiosity, logic, date awareness and in-depth research. I hate the obvious cherry-picking and another thing that annoys me is the lack of curiosity and logic in the matter of anomalies – if the dog didn’t bark in the night find out why - , inconsistencies , often failing to pick up on them never mind question them -, and claims that that don't add up when viewed with one's researched data and quite a bit has come from non-English sources. They’ve also been caught out on their lack of psychology – haven’t any of them heard of the adage that begins ‘Hell hath no fury’ - legal knowledge and linguistics.

But the failings that really have me grating and gritting my teeth are lack of date awareness and lack of in-depth research - In the case of the first failing to pick up on events and/or dates happening at the same time or around the same time and make connections. I've picked up some dozen in the past few months which have cast quite a new light on the period between 1380 and 1510. And here is the absolute classic a statement that's been in print for over 200 years,that can be found in the British Library and online beginning ‘In 1485 King Richard II’.....’ – no I kid you not - and it seems I’m the first to pick up on it. Even worse when the online source was notified it didn’t seem a bit interested as to whether it’s the wrong year or the wrong king despite the fact if it’s the wrong king it could be a very significant piece of information indeed.

And in the matter of in-depth research not just one’s subject but everybody around them or who had some part to play in their lives/events, particularly in the case of those regarded as pawns such as EOY and Anne Neville. In the case of the Nevilles I’ve picked up on a nasty family dispute which suggests that Warwick would have no more welcomed Eleanor Butler as his cousin’s consort than Elizabeth Wydeville and still head-scratching as to why no historian from those I’ve read has even seemed to have realised that Warwick if there’s any truth in the pre-contract story despite being EB’s uncle was apparently kept out of the loop/in the dark never mind ask why. And while we’re on the subject of the pre-contract where was Bishop Stillington on 7th May 1483 and what should he have done?

It’s a wonder I am still permitted to use the BL given the number of times I've gone‘Duh/AAAAArrrgh/Oh puh-leeeeeeeeeeease’. I’ve had to go for a Joan of Arc hairdo to disguise all the hair pulling out and cover up even on hot days because of the constant breast-beating. Pass the valium somebody please.

Marie said...

Congrats on the news!

Robinbird said...

Conrgats on the news! I'll be looking forward to them!

Susan Higginbotham said...

Caroline, I do wish someone would write such a portrait of Henry VII! Unfortunately, my future novel isn't about him or Elizabeth. There is a novel by Jean Stubbs called An Unknown Welshman about him, which is sympathetic, but it stops at about the time of his marriage. I do get very tired of seeing the marriage depicted as a miserable one.

Thanks, Ragged Staff and ALmy!

Trish, no worries, my novels will be set in a later period. No Wars of the Roses at all in them, which means I'll have to move my books around again.

Marie, thanks!

Ragged Staff said...

Trish, if you're referring to the protracted and bitter dispute between Warwick and the countess's half sisters - you're not quite the first person to have noticed this. And the whole point of a secret marriage, surely, is to keep everyone out of the loop. Whatever modern views there are of marriage, kings (and others) were supposed to marry for political benefit, not impetuous youthful ardour. Warwick, Edward's mother and whoever else may have opposed his choice/s were perfectly right to do so.

Carla said...

Congratulations on the two new books!

Daphne said...

Wonderful news on the books - I can't wait!!

Susan Higginbotham said...

Thanks, Carla and Daphne!