Paperback E-book
Is the writing of author notes necessary for historical fiction, more especially romance fiction? The straight answer is, yes, if characters lives are set against specific historical events and real persons of note. It's far too easy to say, but it's only fictional romance when in fact as soon as a real-time great battle is featured, a political storm, or a king loses his head, the novel is no longer mere fiction it has crossed the line into a recorded historical moment in time. Therefore the author is obliged to enlighten with at least a summary of events prior to and post the featured event/s, There will of course be readers who are cognisant to that period in history whilst many readers will be far from knowledgeable of your chosen subject matter, and likewise many readers have idealistic impressions of times past garnered from historical fiction novels.
Sometimes short author notes suffice. At other times the story requires no enlightenment, the obvious is there, but on occasion there are times when long notes seem wise. I really did ponder the following notes for the above book, and then I remembered an American reader having said in a discussion that she knew little about the period of the ECWs, and although she had read one of the other books in The Royal Series, and albeit regional in content, as much as the entertainment and romantic value of the story she also valued the learning aspect, the desire to read more ECWs novels. A coup? Damn it yes, because I'd got her interested in a period she had never read before. And but a week past I received a lovely email from another reader who had indeed purchased the above novel (English male) and he was so impressed by the story and my author notes he purchased and read all the presently published Royal Series novels and awaits the next in the series with enthusiasm. This was from a man who wouldn't ordinarily have read a romance novel quote: ...never judge a book by its cover is the saying and as war novels go it was excellent and on a par with Bernard Cornwell with added spice worth reading. Not a word was skipped Ms Howarth, not a single word. You have yourself a convert and one who will look more closely at novels with romance headers... He went on and praised the author notes, so I thought I would post them here, for it's so hard to write author notes that don't sound too damnably tutorial in tone...
There is no disputing the fact the 17th century – for the United Kingdoms’ of Scotland, England, and the Principality of Wales, and the former Commonwealth Protectorates – paid witness to a bloody period in history. There are many theories as to why the first Civil War (1642) erupted and all have merit in their own right of reasoned analysis. Unfortunately, few historians venture to the greatest impact on the populous such as that of the legacy bestowed by James I to his people. At a time when Bishops, priests and pastors held power of religious intellect, the preaching and teachings of the holy-scriptures were delivered in verbal context from the church to the people. Thus, when King James (VI Scotland) was declared by Queen Elizabeth I, as her successor on her death, it was he James (I England) who afforded new purpose to the people with his translation of the Bible from Latin to plain speak English. His great feat duly awakened aspiration within his subjects to read the scriptures in their own homes, hence his literary endeavour as good as opened the lid of Pandora’s Box.
.
The people, the greater
by no means simpletons, a great majority were multi-lingual in English and French
let alone Welsh, Gaelic et al. But James translation of the Bible was suddenly
theirs’ to behold, to turn the pages, and of those who were illiterate in the
written word, suddenly this wondrous book willed incentive to learn the words
as writ. James I had provided a means for the people, in simple terms of
religious beliefs, to communicate directly with “God” and they did. Once they
were educated in one medium, a whole new world of the written word was
available to the masses via pamphlets and documents. James I by selfless
literary intellect effectively spawned a literary revolution within the masses.
(Of course I am aware
James didn’t translate the ruddy bible himself. That he delegated the job to numerous
translators, and I also know others had translated the bible beforehand, but it
has to be said the KJ bible was put into mass print at his instigation!)
~
As this book has nothing
to do with James I in terms of story, nor directly to do with his son Charles
I, a brief pass through history is nonetheless a means of understanding the
religious differences at the time of Cromwell’s rise to fame (or infamy) during
the years of the first English Civil Wars, and how those differences impact
within the Royal Series of novels as a whole. For in truth, differing religions
had a smaller part to play at the time of the first Civil War than did the fact
the general populous could no longer be manipulated by church teachings. More
than half the peoples were beginning to refuse to accept the divine right of a
monarch to rule as that of God’s edict. Any further right to impose taxes and
levies upon his people at will without recourse to the Commons Parliament, a
body elected by the people to represent the people and protect their rights to
at least subsistence living – before taxes could be levied against them – added
further fuel to seething discontent. What is more, wealthy merchants and
merchant guilds were equally incensed by proposed increased levies against
imported goods by royal command, thereby cutting their profit margins. Thus the
earlier Civil Wars were only in part stirred by religious bent.
.
However, the Monmouth
Rebellion was indeed a religiously motivated rebellion against a Catholic
monarch who became the King of a Protestant nation. Fear had prior arisen
during the reign of Charles II, that if his brother became king, then James
would in a short while bring about the dissolution of the Protestant Church of
England and re-instate the Catholic Church of France, if not the Holy Roman
Church, the very same Henry VIII had rid the country of for personal reasons.
Thus throughout the reign of Charles II, many aristocrats, parliamentary
figures, ecclesiastical clergy inclusive bishops, and ordinary folk had
foreseen the grave issue of no male heir come the death of Charles II, and many
strongly believed, and a few had indeed claimed to have witnessed marriage papers
declaring Charles II (when Prince of Wales) had married the Duke of Monmouth’s
mother Lucy Walter, not once, but twice. There is far too much about this
particular period in history to venture into in great detail here, but a few
questionable notions arose throughout in my research project, and that is why I
never take history as writ, and indeed look to the reasons why history becomes
distorted and why with a detective mind-set, events, times, dates declared
within memoirs (James II), and others’ diaries, private letters, and state
papers, even names, simply don’t always add up. In order to evaluate some
nuance of the truth of what really occurred, one should remember the victor, in
any dispute, war, whatever, holds sway on how that event is recorded.
.
Further to the general
mystery, “there must have been some truth in the matter of a marriage/s between
Lucy and Charles (?)” else why at the time of Lucy’s “so-called disgrace” was
great effort made to retrieve “papers” that were detrimental to his majesty and
to any subsequent marriage proposals to European princesses, and all whilst the
royal court was in exile on the Continent? The greater question, if Charles was
not married to Lucy Walter, what possible threat as his mere mistress could she
pose to a future contracted marriage? Scandal and rumour were part and parcel
of court life, some true, some false, and some created for nefarious purposes.
At the same time, Queen Henrietta Maria, (Charles mother) dispatched a trusted
agent to the County of Pembrokeshire to retrieve church papers (marriage
record) at Rhos Church (Rosemarket), though unfortunately for Mr Proger (agent)
– at that time – Lucy’s brother Richard Walter was High Sheriff of
Pembrokeshire.
.
There are many strange
coincidences (sad fate) regarding people who had direct connections with Lucy,
for as you know from having read this novel, there is mention of William Lord
Russell, who was headed for treason. Here I now present you with a piece
garnered from Lord George Scott, a descendent of the Duke of Monmouth, which
clearly provides a little background to Lord Russell’s deeper insight to
Monmouth as the legitimate son of Charles II, in that, the Earl of Shaftesbury
was the prime instigator in the parliamentary exclusion bill crisis, and was
indeed a friend of William Lord Russell (married to Lady Rachel Vaughan, this
lady prior married to Lucy Walter’s cousin), who knew Lucy well. No wonder then
Lord Russell was viewed as a dire threat to James Stuart’s desire to become
King of England. Aside from all that, twenty years after Lucy’s death calumnies
against her name persisted, and were cast from James Stuart’s suite. Therefore,
is it pure speculation to suppose James’ sole purpose for denigrating Lucy and
the King’s son for so long, the only son (illegitimate or otherwise) from
amongst Charles’ offspring, whom he treated in the manner of a royal blood
prince, thus viewed by James as a serious rival for the crown?
.
While I shall hope and
pray I have conveyed the Catholic perspective by way of Henry Gantry, who early
on in the book, as you know, allies himself to James Duke of York, later James
II. So too, the perspective of Protestants are reflected through the eyes of
the Thornton family, Henry’s parents and his brother.
.
The greatest tragedy
post-Battle of Sedgemoor was not only the dreadful botched heading of Monmouth
on Tower Hill July 15th 1685 – deliberate butchery or otherwise – it
was the Bloody Assizes presided over by Judge Jeffreys, which culminated in a
blood bath greater than that encountered on the battle field. So gruesome are
the official accounts of the gross injustice inflicted upon those who were
tried and sentenced, truly sickens one. Of those who were hung drawn and
quartered, as noted by honourable ecclesiastical witnesses, many were butchered
whilst still alive before their bodies were left hanging from every available
tree alongside the highway from Glastonbury to Bridgewater, from trees
elsewhere, and from gibbets in town squares across Somerset and Dorset. Of the
most noted rebels, their private parts were lopped off, packaged up, and
dispatched to their loved ones as a salutary warning to never again rebel
against the King. It was a terrible revenge enacted in the name of James II,
and as Justine said: “The name Monmouth
is now engraved on the West Country. We are his headstone, the mark of his loss
and ours.”
.
Some accounts claim 400
rebel soldiers were killed on the battlefield, and only 24 royalist soldiers
perished. The latter figure is considered iffy, and merely an exercise in
propaganda, for in greater consideration of 80 royalist soldiers killed during
a previous skirmish at Philips Norton (Norton St Philip), the rebel soldiers
had thoroughly thrashed the hides of the royalist forces on that occasion. But,
of the rebels who were captured at the Langmoor Rhyne (rhine), and chased
through the surrounding corn fields, 1,200 were taken prisoner. Others were
hunted down further afield, routed and rounded-up, and they too were later
brought before Judge Jeffreys. The figure of 3,000 horse and foot making up the
total of Monmouth’s army on that fatal day gives rise to how many of them
succeeded in evading capture? Further to all that, one has to remember of the
I,000 + rebels who were known to have deserted Monmouth’s army a few days
beforehand on written promise of merciful pardon by James II – so long as they
provided their names to local militia upon dispersal – the majority were
dragged from their homes, arrested and the “lucky ones” were deported to the
colonies. That was the true fact of the King’s merciful promise, barring
exceptions where rebels turned informer and thereby retained their heads and
body parts. Amongst the escapees from the battlefield was that of Daniel Defoe,
who escaped to the Scilly Isles, he who became a novelist, his most famous
works: Robinson Crusoe & Moll Flanders.
~
To the novel:
Albeit the novel is in
part Henry’s story, it is also part of a greater tapestry set against the
backdrop of two main family estates, and the royal court. The whole series duly
spans the years from the first English Civil War beginning the year of 1642
through to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. True to his nature, and due to
elements of his past, the Hon Henry Gantry has traversed a troubled path to and
throughout his early adulthood – perhaps more evident within previous books,
and through his perspective I have endeavoured to portray the Catholic aspect
of James rise to power as that of a Catholic monarch within a Protestant
nation. As for the Protestant perspective, it could not be otherwise, than
through the thoughts and actions of the Thornton and Gantry families, barring
Henry who had converted to Catholicism before the story begins.
.
Had he met his
grandmother, the Lady Arabella Gantry, a woman of strong religious bent, she
may well have encouraged him to look to the priesthood when he was young and
troubled, as opposed to seeking his destiny within the royal court. For me,
Henry is a complex character, a love-hate bond existing between us, but in the
next book “Lady of the Tower” an honourable gesture enacted by Henry, whilst on
the Sedgemoor battlefield, post-battle, strengthens his resolve to build on
family loyalty afore that of the King.
Amazon UK Amazon US
