Susan Appleyard's Blog, page 23
June 17, 2015
Parliament in the middle ages
Parliament was the feeble offspring of the Magna Carta. ‘No taxation without representation.’ That was the slogan of a later age and a different country but it serves here. Magna Carta was forced on King John by the barons and what the barons meant by representation was… well, themselves, plus some of the more prominent landed knights. The barons were serving the commonwealth of the realm which was… well, themselves.
Nevertheless the weakling child that had been born in a meadow near Runymede, despite lack of nurturing, survived and was given an infusion of vitality in 1265 by Simon de Montfort. His father of the same name was the one who did such sterling service for the Catholic Church during the Albigensian campaign. De Montfort junior is credited with being the Founder of Parliament, but his motives were far from altruistic. He was a rebel who seized power from King Henry III after his victory at the battle of Lewes. But his position was tenuous. To gather more support for his cause, he summoned burgesses from all the major towns, as well as the barons and knights who had previously counseled the king. It was the creation of a new limb: the Commons.
Under Henry’s son, Edward I, the calling of parliament became a more frequent event. In the thirty-five years of his reign, parliament was summoned no less than forty-six times. Nor was Edward’s motive altruistic. He needed money to pursue his Welsh and Scottish wars. The Commons had not yet learned that they could say ‘No, Sire,’ or perhaps they were a little overawed by him, but they did soon learn that if they voted the king money they could get something in return.
To summon parliament writs were sent out from the chancery instructing the sheriffs of each county to hold a county court for the election. Freemen who owned freehold land worth 40 shillings a year could vote. Two knights of the shire were elected from the thirty-seven counties in England, and two burgesses were elected from every town that had the right to send members to parliament enshrined in its charter, as many as two hundred and twenty-two.
Inevitably there were abuses and fights aplenty. A man who thought he had a good chance of being elected and took along some friends for support, would swiftly change his mind when he arrived and found the door blocked by a rival who had even more friends. In 1362 deputies of the sheriff of Lancaster returned themselves without consulting the constituents. John Paston got into a fight at the shire house with the sheriff, Sir John Howard, and was twice struck by a dagger. Members were supposed to live in the borough, but sometimes nobles and knights would invade a town, bringing along their own candidate and forcing the voters to elect him. Or a local baron would send along his thugs to make sure the candidate who best supported his interests was elected. Some of the great nobles didn’t have to resort to strong-arm tactics; they simply let their wishes be known and it was done. These practices were particularly prevalent during the War of the Roses.
The money was good: four shillings a day for the knights; two shillings for the burgesses. Not bad when the average daily wage for a peasant was two pennies. The financial burden fell on the shires and the boroughs.
By the late middle-ages the Commons had won some clout. They made laws and they made kings. And they unmade some kings too.
June 15, 2015
Hot off the presses.
My new book,The Relentless Queen, is a novel about at the life of Margaret of Anjou, who was Queen of England during the War of the Roses. In order to protect her weak husband and young son, Margaret became a key figure in the struggle, directing armies and determining policy. In a time when women were expected to produce babies yearly and tend to household matters, she became king in all but name.
To take a look at all my books visit: http://www.amazon.com/Susan-Appleyard/e/B00UTVMT5
June 11, 2015
The Woodvilles
Queen Elizabeth Woodville, mother of the Princes in the Tower of London and one of the most maligned women in history, but was she really, as described so often, greedy, grasping, scheming? Were her family? I have a different view of her and I don’t think it can be refuted. Elizabeth was simply a woman of her times, albeit a woman in a powerful and public position. After her marriage she was in a position to help her family rise in power, prestige and wealth. Had she not done so she would have been guilty of neglecting an important familial duty. Anyone who knows anything about the 15th century will admit that people then married not for love but for gain of some sort or another. Life was all about accumulation of those three things: power, prestige and wealth.
And what about those grasping Woodvilles? Were they really? How did they benefit? Well, Elizabeth’s father was soon created Earl Rivers and given the office of treasurer, but then he’d been active in the previous regime for years and may have risen anyway. Brother Anthony got some lands in East Anglia and brother John got the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk to wife, although he didn’t enjoy her or her riches long. All those sisters made better marriages than they would have if Elizabeth hadn’t wed the king, but the bridegrooms don’t appear to have objected. So what did all this cost them? John and his father were executed by Warwick for no greater crime than being Woodvilles. Their mother was accused of witchcraft (exonerated except where some modern histfic writer’s are concerned.) Anthony and one of Elizabeth’s non-royal sons were executed by Richard III on trumped-up charges, and poor Elizabeth, twice she had to seek refuge in Sanctuary – as far as I know the only queen ever to do so. Finally, her two royal sons, aged 12 and 9, were murdered in the Tower of London by Richard III to clear his path to the throne.
In those days it didn’t pay to be a Woodville.
June 10, 2015
My tags
1) Indie writing because I’m an indie writer and there’s such a lot to learn.
2) Medieval history because that’s my favorite period.
3) Edward IV because he’s my favorite person of my favorite period.
4) Isabella of France because she’s the subject of my next book.
5) Blogging 101 to connect with other newbies and because I may need to do it over.
May 31, 2015
The longevity of the Neville women
The longevity of the Neville women.
It is impossible to be definitive, but it seems the life expectancy of a woman in the Middle Ages was about thirty-five to forty. While the average life expectancy of a man was truncated by battle and block, as well as work related accidents, the battlefield for women was the birthing chamber. Many died in childbirth (5%) or from complications arising afterward (as many as 15%). If a woman survived her child-bearing years, however, she stood a good chance of living into her fifties or sixties.
I was surprised to discover that the Neville women, four sisters, all lived to a ripe old age. By the Neville women, I mean the daughters of Earl Ralph of Westmoreland and his second wife, Joan Beaufort: Eleanor, Katherine, Anne and Cecily. The trouble with living so long is that collectively they outlived numerous husbands, sons and even grandsons. I decided to look into this, focussing on the male members of the families who reached manhood. Information about girls is harder to find, especially if they were younger daughters or didn’t marry well.
Eleanor was the eldest, born c. 1397 died 1472. She had 3 spouses, but children with only the second and third. The second was Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland, with whom she had 10, 7 of them boys. Of the four 4 I could track, all four predeceased her, although one was a bishop and might have been expected to live longer than the others who all died in battle or under the axe. One of her grandsons became Earl of Northumberland in his turn and also predeceased her, while another had 5 sons who all outlived her. I couldn’t discover anything about her second husband and the 2 sons she had with him.
Katherine, Duchess of Norfolk, came next, born c.1400 and died sometime after 1483. She had 4 husbands but only 1 son and 1 grandson, who did not outlive her but were fortunate to die natural deaths.
Anne was born c.1411 and died in 1480, outliving 2 husbands. By her first, Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, she had 4 sons and outlived all but 1. Of 2 grandsons, 1 survived her.
Cecily, born 1415, died 1495, the youngest and best known had only 1 husband, Richard Duke of York with whom she had 4 sons and outlived them all. The eldest was King Edward IV, who had 2 sons, known as the princes in the tower. A contentious issue, but it is highly likely that Cecily outlived them. Her second son was killed at the age of 17 and had no issue. The third son, George had 1 son who outlived his grandmother by about 4 years. Her fourth son, King Richard III had one son who did not outlive her.
Most of the information above came from Wikipedia and http://www.geni.com/
May 29, 2015
My new book
Here is is the brief prologue from my new book, which will be available at Amazon in June.
I have never been very good at remorse, which is much overrated and fills the church’s coffers with redemptive gold. Whatever I have done, it was in the certainty that right and justice were on my side. I make no apologies, offer no explanations. If you judge me, judge with care. We are created at birth, but shaped by life.
Marcus Aurelius wrote: Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
Here is my perspective.
May 27, 2015
New book from Elizabeth Welsford
Here is the link for a wonderful book I just read. It is set in 19th century London and tells the story of Dr. William Whitcraft who has a method of dealing with women’s ‘hysteria’ that boggles the mind.
May 25, 2015
My main character
) What is the name of your character? Is he/she fictional or a historic person?
2) When and where is the story set?
3) What should we know about your main character?
4) What is the main conflict? What messes up his/her life?
5) What is the personal goal of the character?
6) Is there a working title for this novel, and can we read more about it?
7) When can we expect the book to be published?
My main character is Margaret of Anjou, who was Queen of England from 1445 – 1461.
My story opens in 1453 when her husband Henry VI falls into a state of catatonic schizophrenia and ends in 1471 with the ruin of her house. Those years take her from England to Wales, Scotland and back to her native France.
Margaret is an anomaly. In an age when queens sat in their palaces and received news between performing acts of charity and birthing babies, she took power into her own hands, dictated policy, dealt with other heads of state and led armies. In the thoroughly male-dominated world of the fifteenth century this was quite an achievement.
The main conflict is the War of the Roses, the struggle between the house of Lancaster, personified by Margaret, and the house of York, first for control of a weak and unsatisfactory king and then for the crown itself.
Margaret has to repress her feminine instincts in order to protect her unstable husband and young son. Even when the house of York appears to be triumphant she never gives up the struggle to restore her husband to the throne and her son to his birthright.
The working title of this book is The Remorseless Queen and is as factual as I can make it. It will be available in June.
May 23, 2015
Why write a blog?
I expect other people have different reasons for writing a blog, but mine are very simple: to express my thoughts and feelings about what is proving to be a most enjoyable, exhilarating, educational and utterly frustrating experience. Indie publishing! Marketing! Promotion! I’m sure there are many who feel the same way. I would love to hear from you.
There will be two themes to this blog. The first will concern all aspects of writing and the second history, mostly medieval history, which is my great passion.
Here on my blog I can run on, ramble, wax lyrical or write with journalistic economy as I choose. I can’t do that on Twitter, or Facebook. I do belong to some interesting groups but the posts tend to be brief; I think everyone prefers it that way. There is another reason for having a blog. Everyone seems to expect it of authors. As if we don’t do enough writing!
Hello world!
This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.
Happy blogging!
