An unhappy medieval bride and a book promotion
On December 13, 1470, fourteen year old Anne Neville was wed to the seventeen year old Lancastrian prince, Edward, a marital alliance that was cynical even by medieval standards.
The Northeast is getting another nasty storm this weekend, so all in its path stay warm and safe.
I just discovered that Poisoned Pen Press is currently offering Priscilla Royal's first mystery, Wine of Violence, for a bargain promotional price of 99 cents. Since we are currently offering a free signed copy of Priscilla's newest, Covenant with Hell, in a drawing on my blog, I wanted to mention this, too.
Lastly, Holly seems back to normal after the health scare of last week, so I feel as if I've received an early Christmas present.
The Northeast is getting another nasty storm this weekend, so all in its path stay warm and safe.
I just discovered that Poisoned Pen Press is currently offering Priscilla Royal's first mystery, Wine of Violence, for a bargain promotional price of 99 cents. Since we are currently offering a free signed copy of Priscilla's newest, Covenant with Hell, in a drawing on my blog, I wanted to mention this, too.
Lastly, Holly seems back to normal after the health scare of last week, so I feel as if I've received an early Christmas present.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jemidar
(last edited Dec 13, 2013 11:25PM)
(new)
Dec 13, 2013 11:23PM
I can't see how or why Anne and Edward's marriage would be considered any different from any other medieval political alliance?? And even so, that doesn't make it necessarily anymore unhappy than any other medieval marriage. To say otherwise is just Yorkist/Ricardian bullsh*t because we just don't know.
reply
|
flag
I'm glad Holly is ok. As for Anne and Edward I agree with Jemidar. Almost all alliances were backstabbing and ruthless in those times. Family alliances changing with the seasons. At least he wasn't 20 years older than Anne.. I'm still surprised there isn't more research about him, considering he was the heir at one time.
The answer is in your post: 'We just don’t know."This is the essence of what historical fiction is about; the germ of an idea that leads an author to think 'what if' and so begins the journey, and once the author has finished the journey, it then continues with the readers.
How empty my bookshelves would be if authors stopped writing because, 'they don't really know' how events transpired or the feelings and thoughts of the protagonists.
It is in the not knowing that the sojourn begins and for a while we are immersed in another age, where customs are different and where heroes and heroines don't always win and villains don't always get their just deserts. From the scraps of mere facts, whole kingdoms have been built.
So my thought is, thank God for the 'we just don't know,' where authors can lead us to lose ourselves in centuries gone past and we can gain a glimpse of the people who lived in those momentous times and our own hearts rise and fall on what the author can make of the 'don't knows.'
So in the end it is a case of...Thank God we don’t know.
PS: So happy that Holly is doing better:)
While I totally agree about historical fiction my comment was about this blog post only. I assumed it was supposed to be factual, as in, recounting historical events that happened on this day in which case my comment is relevant.
A quick note, I found it at amazon.com for 99 cents as well/ "Priscilla Royal's first mystery, Wine of Violence"
"I assumed it was supposed to be about...." Are you the blog police, Jemidar? Most historical fiction is conjecture based on researching facts. If you facts alone, read history books only. But even those are conjecture. The only people who can know anything for certain about history are those who lived it. Ms. Penman is one of the most well-respected researchers amongst the ranks of historical fiction authors. She is also a classy lady, and I'd be surprised to see her use such language as you have just done. Does the anonymity of the internet make it okay? Would you say this to her face? Your use of words such as bullsh*t on this author's blog gives evidence to your lack of creativity. Civil debate does not call for such things. Disagree, fine. We learn from disagreement. But your tone immediately downgrades any respect your opinion may have otherwise garnered.
i've always been told that once someone uses words like "bullsh*t, it's because they have nothing else to say. I, too, have read Sharon Penman for years, along with other historical authors, and she is for me top of the line when it comes to research. i agree with her opinion. after reading about medieval marriages that were NOT cynical, ruthless, or backstabbing, or bullsh*t. any reading of historical documents would prove otherwise. so, i take the comments above with a grain of salt, given any lack of proof that Sharon Penman's comments are untrue, or made from lack of insight after years of research and study.
*Slaps wrist for swearing*I'd love to know which historical documents say that Anne was an unhappy bride when wed to Edward of Lancaster. I'm willing to be proved wrong if you can find references in the primary sources.
back at you, do you have sources that say she WASN'T an unhappy bride?
In my first comment I said we don't know for certain either way so no I don't, but I wasn't the one who made the assertion about how Anne felt about her marriage. There is no proof she was either happy or unhappy which was my original point--she could equally have been deliriously happy.
ok, well, that's not exactly whe you said. so,when you've written several books and get a sense of history, come back and chat. otherwise, keep your bullsh*t to yourself. thank you.
How do you know that I don't have a PHD in history or haven't written several books??
You still didn't answer my question: Would you say this to the author's face? You swore, yes. But my point is, would you come up to Ms. Penman in person, and tell her what you just said, that her post is bullsh*t, or would you find a more civil, mature way to put it? Just because you are sitting behind your computer or tablet or whatever, safely anonymous, does it make it okay to say this on her blog? If you say that yes, you'd say it to her face, you have other issues and my mentioning it is irrelevant; but if you wouldn't make such a comment to her face, why is it okay to do it here? Even my six-year-old knows better.
Since everyone else on this thread have been making massive assumptions (including the original post) I too am going to make one and assume this is a rhetorical question because I can't believe it's sincere. This question appears to me to be more about the question's writer proving her point than about my answer.Sorry ladies, I'm used to more intelligent academic debate where the facts are more important than whether you approve of/like the person expressing the opinion or not. The first rule of historical research is to never make assumptions and it was my mistake for thinking that it would also apply to this discussion.
It is rather disappointing that "intelligent academic debate" cancels out the need to be polite and respectful. I would have thought the two weren't mutually exclusive.
Well said, Jemidar! I too wonder why the author has stated unequivocally that it was a cynical marriage. Of course, one can say that all marriages in those days were cynical, but that wasn't what she said. Her point was this particular marriage was especially cynical. I also don't understand why some people think we can't question this major assumption not based on any known facts. Unfortunately, none of them has provided any basis for defending the statement. Maybe, the author will ...
And don't worry, I didn't find you disrespectful at all. You were merely making a point and had people jumping on you for no reason.
Thanks Kavita. Yes, it's been somewhat amusing that everybody has missed the whole point of my original post and concentrated on the language I used or something else totally irrelevant. I'm glad that at least one other person understood the point I was making and the spirit it was made in.
Indeed, "a marital alliance that was cynical even by medieval standards" implies that there was something particularly beyond the norm about this marriage. I enjoy Sharon Penman's novels very much, but I too would be interested in the primary source evidence supporting this conclusion, since almost all royal and noble alliances were in effect a business transaction. The then heir to the throne would've been seen as a very good catch, I would have thought. Moreover, isn't it the person who proposes the theory or makes the assertion of fact the one with the responsibility of proving it? It's a bit hard to prove a negative.
Agreed. I do hope that Sharon checks in and comments on this thread.
It's the rules of writing Historic Fiction again, isn't it? There's no such thing as a happy Lancastrian marriage. Evah! Well said, Jemidar. People only latch on to the irrelevant part of your post simply because they can't counter the main, relevant, point. By the looks of things, they can't even grasp it, never mind counter it. Sad, really, when someone makes a valid point and ends up falling to a sanctimonious dog pile like this.
There's nothing, so far as I've found, that gives us any kind of clue as to the happiness/unhappiness of this marriage. On paper, it was a good alliance. Maybe it's seeing it in hindsight - Edward died at 17, the marriage was extremely short, and Anne went on to marry a man who is historical hero to many. That was a good alliance as well and (imho) just as cynical (or not) as her first. Had her father's plan succeeded, Anne would have been Queen of England - as her second marriage eventually made her. We'd know more about things and we wouldn't need to speculate either way. Whether there was great love between her and either of her husbands before the respective weddings is immaterial, given the nature and terms of mediaeval marriages. It's just as valid to speculate warmth and affection between her and Edward as otherwise.
Hannah, you made me laugh. I think you might be right about those rules of writing HF!!And thanks for your opinion Karen. I think you've absolutely nailed it.
Anne was one of the richest heiresses in England so her marriage was always going to be dynastic rather than romantic and IMO commonsense dictates that she would've been aware of or expected this. Perhaps we would also know more about her marriage/s had she had children who survived her.
Do you all have lives? Or do the same little pack of you go from author to author page to stir up trouble to entertain each other? Just wondering...
Do you all have lives? Or do the same little pack of you go from author to author page to stir up trouble to entertain each other? Just wondering...
Oh, and in case you missed the memo, the wars of the roses ended centuries ago.
Here we go again. When there is nothing sensible to say, some people will come back with stupid questions like 'Do you have lives?' And yeah, that's adding so much to the discussion. Thank you for such an amazing, illuminating comment.
Absolutely, I would say it to the authors face and that is the exact problem here. She's human like everyone else and shouldn't be treated otherwise . I agree with the commenters above . There is no evidence that the marriage was unhappy or that Edward was a monster. It's a shame that a beautifully written book was so biased in so many ways . It's clear where the authors loyalties lie ( makes no sense since she lives in the 21st century ) . It's one thing to write a story but why not say where you took liberties and where you did not. Sharon aids her fans in this bias and hate towards historical figures and although she has the truth at her fingertips she just sits in the rafters .
You know, David, I mean Jemidar, it's really sad to see some people take advantage of Sharon's kind nature by using her to gain a guest post on her blog in an attempt to promote their own books and then be cowardly enough to come here under a pseudonym to blast her anonymously by calling her writing bullshit.And I will say it again: go find something else to do. Take your negativity and put it to good use. 'Tis the season! Happy happy to you all, and by all means, let me know who wins the war you all are still shadow boxing over.
Cheers!
Geanine, this author is also one who supposedly lives/writes by the mantra of "do not defame the dead" so am surprised that she so willingly does it herself even in her blog posts.Linda; David who? I'm not an author trashing another authors book. I'm not an author period. If you read back over my comments I have always been referring to this specific blog post only. However, I am a student of history and am interested in having a discussion about whether the statements made in said blog post can be substantiated. Plain and simple. No conspiracy theories here. Sorry.
I think some people need to calm down a bit, take their meds and have a good lie down. Sheesh.
Why was the marriage cynical even by medieval standards? I don't understand what info we have that says that anywhere . Do we actually think that Anne was thinking " No daddy ! I don't want to marry the heir to the throne of England ! I don't want to be queen !" I don't think so.
Because, Geanine, all Lancastrian marriages were cynical. Just like there's no such thing as Lancastrian sex; just Lancastrian rape. They drop-kick babies off the castle ramparts and spend all day, every day making up stories about Richard III (or is that just "The Tudors"? I forget the rules now). And we all know Edward of Lancaster was just like Joffrey from Game of Thrones, don't we? Duh! The most important rule of all: the only person who is allowed to have benefit of doubt is Richard III. Everyone else can go to hell. Don't defame the dead, my foot!
Well, golly, gosh-darn! If it isn't the wearisome, condescending, ever-pedantic history-harpies, aka, the self-appointed 'history police' (they come with their own cute little Farcebook page badges), who spend their days wasting dwindling finite time informing others how terribly wrong they are because, "primary sources". Yeah, 'cause THOSE are never conflicting and always, always accurate. It never fails: when one of you decide to toss some mud around and attempt to disguise it as academic discussion or other such wonk-wonk, more show up like little lemmings and things slide right on down into insults and mocking which negates your "arguments" and convinces me I'm repeatedly witnessing projection of petty jealousies and serious anger issues.
It's almost sad, really; this pattern of the same people following each other around from site to site, page to page, over and over, year in, year out, spewing the same old tiresome mantra, demanding readers/writers present history as they themselves see it. I can't help but liken it to a junior high classic: the shallow, small, insecure bathroom bullies.
Are these gang-ups designed to convince others you're unbiased? If you're so very comfortable with your own conclusions, why the need to call for back-up?
Purposely setting out to upset Sharon (and through her, her readers/potential readers) accomplishes what, exactly?
To my knowledge, she doesn't follow you all over social media sites demanding you provide "proof" on your own assertions on, say, Warwick, Edward I, Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII, et al. Why not extend her the same courtesy?
What harm has she done you, other than write best sellers?
It's shameful how some of you have had no qualms against using her to further your own ends, by using her pages to promote your own sites, pages, books, or garnering interviews.
You posers can carp and rip and tear to your heart's content - for whatever reasons - no matter how much Sharon's Sunne gets under your skin, it is and will remain a classic novel. Long after we're all nothing but dust, our names and all this manufactured internet drama are forgotten, readers will still find enjoyment in reading the novels of Sharon Kay Penman, regardless of her interpretation of Anne and her relationships with her respective husbands.
How you adore the "don't defame the dead" and use it liberally to defame the living, instead. Even that, you've turned against her. How noble. Do yourselves a favor and leave her be, even though you resent her. Hell! - do everyone a favor and try to grow up a little, professors. And, hey! Merry Christmas!
how predictable, david. again, when you have no arguments or defense, go the "take your meds" route. and in fact, i've taken some advil and motrin today...a little back issue i've been having. thank you so much for your concern! LOL!
OK, I have to ask. WHO is David? No one named David posted on this thread. Seriously, what are you taking? o_OJo, no one is 'purposely setting out to upset Sharon'. In fact, I am not even sure why being asked a question should upset her. But if it does, she should consider help because it's nothing to get upset about.
Hmpf. I received an email link to this particular nightmare or I would never have seen it given that I began the process of removing my reviews, etc from GR a couple of months ago after what I saw as their horrendous treatment/censorship of reviewers.
Reading a thread like this *almost* makes me understand their pov. Seriously. Step back and read these posts with detachment. They are childish. And if GR policy is responsible for driving away membership, so too is nonsense like this.
Reading a thread like this *almost* makes me understand their pov. Seriously. Step back and read these posts with detachment. They are childish. And if GR policy is responsible for driving away membership, so too is nonsense like this.
Goodness, Jo! That's a bit of an over reaction to a conversation. If you're so upset by 'manufactured internet drama' it might be best if you stopped manufacturing it.Sharon Penman is entitled to write about history from whatever angle she wants. People should be free to discuss that without being bombarded by a barrage of personal insults, as in your extraordinary contribution. And if I've made any 'assertions' about Warwick you wish to discuss, please feel free. I'm always happy to hear another point of view, especially if it references something in the sources I've missed.
Jo wrote: "Well, golly, gosh-darn! If it isn't the wearisome, condescending, ever-pedantic history-harpies, aka, the self-appointed 'history police' (they come with their own cute little Farcebook page badges..."Linda wrote: "how predictable, david. again, when you have no arguments or defense, go the "take your meds" route. and in fact, i've taken some advil and motrin today...a little back issue i've been having. t..." Jo you are exhausting to say the least. No one is following SKP around trying to hurt her . Are you serious? I've read her books and I like her books I am allowed to take issue with this book if I please. You ladies really give her a bad name.
It's amazing how defensive people can be about an author. I love Penman's work, but I agree with Jemidar here. We don't know if Anne was happy or not. I know people want to believe she and Richard were a great love,but there are no facts. Thank you Kavita for understanding the post.
Thanks Rio. I was always only talking about the statement made in this post. It was never a comment about Sharon personally or about her books.
Oh, David, you can stop the pretense. You should just apologize and be done with it.
Linda wrote: "Oh, David, you can stop the pretense. You should just apologize and be done with it."Who is David?
Whoever David is, he's not Jemidar, who's been on Goodreads for years, as her many friends can attest.
Susan wrote: "Whoever David is, he's not Jemidar, who's been on Goodreads for years, as her many friends can attest."Jemidar is supposed to be this David person?
*head desk*
What Susan says. She's been on GR for years, and I'm proud to be one of those friends to attest to it.
Silly isn't it? One look at my profile and you can tell I'm not a sock! Not sure Linda can say the same though as she has lots of friends with zero books!!
Jo wrote: "Well, golly, gosh-darn! If it isn't the wearisome, condescending, ever-pedantic history-harpies, aka, the self-appointed 'history police' (they come with their own cute little Farcebook page badges..."Well golly, gosh-darn! If it isn't the rudest person on the internet. The one incapable of holding a conversation so must resort to a constant barrage of childish insults with a dash of passive aggression. Aren't we lucky? Sorry Jo, does our reasoning intimidate you, or overwhelm you, or both?
Sharon Kay Penman's Blog
- Sharon Kay Penman's profile
- 4037 followers
Sharon Kay Penman isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
