Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Why Margaret Beaufort?

My guest today is a kindred spirit. Judith and I share a love of the Tudor era and the amazing woman who helped to form it. Her latest series features a woman who is more often made the villain in novels, so I asked her about her inspiration for writing from the point of view of the woman famous for being a force behind her son's throne, Margaret Beaufort.

Welcome, Judith! I am happy you are here!
~ Samantha


Guest Post by Judith Arnopp


I am often asked why I chose to write about Margaret Beaufort and, although I hate to answer a question with a question, my usual reply is ‘Why wouldn’t I?’ Poor Margaret has gained quite a negative reputation, especially in fiction and I think it has a lot to do with her portraits. The portraiture of most of the women I’ve written about, Anne Boleyn, Katheryn Parr, Elizabeth of York, depict young, attractive women who’ve the added bonus of a touch of romance in their lives. Unfortunately for Margaret, her surviving portraits were painted late in life; she appears dour faced, pious and elderly. I believe this severe image has tainted the way authors have chosen to depict her.

It is clear Margaret was never a great beauty, and she never enjoyed a great royal romance but her impact upon history is undeniable. Margaret’s political involvement in the wars of the roses helped establish the Tudor dynasty, and her role in Henry’s government stabilised it. When I write I imagine I am the protagonist. In Margaret’s case I wanted to access the girl and the young woman, so I put away the portrait of the old lady and imagined a painfully young child thrust into the adult world.

Putting aside the assumptions that have been made and using only the known facts of her life, I came up with a rather different view of Margaret. Throughout my life I have favoured York over Lancaster but when it comes to writing I have to be objective. I do not demonise for the sake of drama, history is exciting enough without making too much up. Obviously I use my imagination to fill in gaps, add dialogue etc. but I examine the factual evidence and do my best to consider, without bias, the deeper character of the person I am writing about. When writing in the first person I also have to remember that we are all blind to our own negative side, and Margaret would never have seen her own actions as flawed. This helps me to illustrate her possible motivations without evoking the almost pantomime villain she has become.

Margaret is often blamed for the disappearance of the princes from the Tower but I have found nothing in the record to prove it; there are plenty of other candidates who could be held equally as culpable. Unauthorised entry to the Tower was just not possible; whatever the fate of the boys, it was carried out with either the knowledge of the king or the Constable of the Tower.

Margaret’s life, even before her rise to power, was interesting. From infancy she was the sole heiress of the Duke of Somerset, her hand in marriage pursued almost from the cradle. She married four times, her first marriage to John de la Pole took place when she was just six years old but was quickly annulled. Her second marriage, this time to Edmund Tudor at the age of twelve, was also short lived, his death leaving her widowed and pregnant at the age of thirteen. In extremity she turned for support to her brother-in-law, Jasper Tudor and gave birth of her only son at his stronghold in Pembroke. It is believed the birth left Margaret so damaged she could conceive no further children.

Her third marriage to Henry Stafford, second son of the Duke of Buckingham, was of her own choosing, providing her with access to Edward IV’s court. In the years that followed Margaret trod a dangerous path through the complexities of the war between York and Lancaster – her heart lay with her Lancaster kin, but when York finally won the throne she seems to have bowed to the inevitable and accepted Edward IV’s rule.

With the royal nursery quickly filling with York heirs, the idea of Henry Tudor ever attainting the throne at this time would not have occurred to her but she petitioned instead for his pardon and the return of his estates.  

Margaret managed to survive the upheaval of the next few years while power passed to and fro between York and Lancaster. Henry Stafford died of wounds received at Barnet, fighting for York, leaving Margaret widowed again. She remarried swiftly, choosing for her final husband the powerful northern magnate, Thomas Stanley. This union brought Margaret even closer to the royal family where she formed a link with the Queen, Elizabeth Woodville; a relationship which, after King Edward’s sudden death in 1483, was to develop into intrigue.

Initially she seems to have accepted Richard of Gloucester’s claim to the throne, bearing the new Queen, Anne Neville’s train at the coronation. It was not until later that she began to plot actively to place her own son on the throne but there is nothing to suggest she was complicit in any plan to murder the princes. In fact, there is no actual evidence that they were killed at all – they disappeared, there were later murmurings against Gloucester but nothing has ever been satisfactorily proven. It is the mystery surrounding this period in history that makes it so interesting and irresistible to authors. There are as many theories as there are candidates for the crime (if any existed).

After Bosworth, when Henry became king, Margaret was finally in a position of power. She is often portrayed as the ‘mother-in-law from hell’ but, while there may have been initial resentments between Margaret and Henry’s queen, Elizabeth of York, as there often are between in-laws, ultimately relations between the two women were amicable. While the queen confined her interests to the royal nursery and charitable works, playing no part in administration, Margaret took a leading role in Henry’s government. She was one of his chief advisors, taking charge of finances and the running of the royal household, overseeing the upbringing and education of the royal children.

In my novels that form The Beaufort Chronicles, writing from Margaret’s perspective, I try to illustrate her motives, show the events and the people of the fifteenth century through her eyes. I have to ‘know’ only what she may have known. I give voice to her inner self, her passions, even the negative thoughts we all have but never speak aloud. Novels are, of course, only fiction but after the treatment she has received in both fiction and non-fiction, I think she is deserving of a voice.

People love to have someone to blame, and Margaret being plain, pious and forthright provides the perfect scapegoat. She was clearly no beauty but her portraits were taken in later life; the purpose was not to display her good looks but rather her piety, her charity and her intelligence which were, in those days, virtues to be proud of. It seems strange that today these characteristics have come to be regarded in the negative.

Piety in the middle ages was the norm; it would have been far more remarkable if she’d been atheist or lax at prayer. In the twenty-first century we have become uneasy around intense devotion to God, and because of this, in trying to make sense of emotions that are foreign to us, authors have resorted to portraying her as a religious fanatic. But perhaps, if we had to endure the unsanitary conditions of the fifteen century; the child mortality, the frequent bouts of pestilence and famine, and the ever-present threat of death we too might turn to the protection of a greater supernatural power.

I won’t deny that Margaret was a forthright woman but determination gets things done and Margaret is one of the few medieval women to have set out, virtually unaided, to achieve her goals. Initially, she seems to have accepted York’s rule, she was compliant under Edward IV and in the early part of Richard III’s reign but at some point, her agenda altered and she began to work toward what she saw as the rights of her son.

Margaret played a huge part in providing Henry with the means to invade England and take possession of the throne. After Bosworth and the reward of seeing her only child crowned King of England she could have sat back and enjoyed her dotage. Instead, she continued to work diligently for the Tudor cause. She assisted in the establishment of the dynasty and was a key figure at Henry’s court, building the public Tudor image, attending to the administration of the court, and overseeing the raising of the Tudor heirs.

Tudors are not everyone’s favourite royal dynasty and there are those who will never see virtue in Margaret Beaufort’s role in the wars of the roses but, dynastic preferences aside, she was a strong determined person, a religious person who did not rely on beauty to buy her way into power. She relied solely upon her remarkably agile mind. If she were a man she’d be hailed as a political genius.

Connect with Judith


Judith’s historical novels offer a view of the Tudor court from the perspective of the women close to the throne.




Her work includes:
The Beaufort Bride: Book One of The Beaufort Chronicles
The Beaufort Woman: Book Two of The Beaufort Chronicles
The King’s Mother: Book Three of The Beaufort Chronicles – coming soon

A Song of Sixpence: the story of Elizabeth of York and Perkin Warbeck
Intractable Heart: the story of Katheryn Parr
The Winchester Goose: at the court of Henry VIII
The Kiss of the Concubine: a story of Anne Boleyn



Medieval Novels
The Song of Heledd
The Forest Dwellers
Peaceweaver


Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Mary Takes A Stand

Princess Mary Tudor
By summertime of 1533, the Lady Mary, or Princess Mary as she continued to style herself, had endured much during the course of her short life. She was seventeen, an age when most of her peers were either married or planning an advantageous match. However, Mary's uncertain status left her in an awkward limbo. She was the daughter of the king, but no longer his heir. Betrothals for her had been made and broken, but Henry VIII seemed in no hurry to give legitimacy to his daughter's position by finding her a high-born spouse.

Mary's mother was locked away to clear the path for her father's new wife, Anne Boleyn, who was pregnant with the child that Henry prayed would be his long-awaited son. These were anxious days for Mary, knowing that a son would certainly take her place - in the succession and in her father's heart. Still, Mary decided to take a stand against her father, much as her mother had before her.

Henry may have felt that he was making an inconsequential request when he ordered Lord Hussey, Mary's chamberlain, to send Mary's royal jewels. Mary had been given no choice in accepting her father's new marriage, but here she found a small way to stand up for herself. With the support of her steadfast governess, Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury, Mary refused to turn over her jewelry. Margaret informed Hussey that it 'cannot conveniently be spared.'

King Henry VIII
As Henry received reports of his daughter's stubbornness and pride, Mary's household moved to Beaulieu. This is where she would receive the news that she had a new half-sister. Mary must have wondered what this would mean for her. From her point of view, even a boy would have been an illegitimate brother, like the Duke of Richmond, but, surely, another girl could not displace her the way a boy would have. But Henry's wrath at Mary's disobedience and his own disappointment would ensure that any relief Mary experienced was short-lived.

As strongly as Mary felt that her mother was the king's only true wife and she his only true heir, Henry and Anne were just as staunchly certain of their union. Unfortunately for Mary, Henry was the one in charge. Shortly following Elizabeth's birth on September 7, 1533, Henry revoked Mary's right to her household livery, her coat of arms, along with the title of princess. Her household was reduced, though the loyal Countess of Salisbury remained at her side. Overstepping her bounds more than she knew, Mary wrote to her father, incredulously stating that she had received a letter referring to her as "'the Lady Mary, the king's daughter', leaving out the name of princess. I marvelled at this, thinking your grace was not privy to it."

He was. And he did not appreciate the impudence of his eldest daughter.

Henry took a step that could leave no doubt of Mary's status in his eyes. He demanded that she acknowledge her illegitimacy and admit that his marriage to her mother had been invalid. Mary replied that her father might give her any title that he liked, but she was rightly called princess. It was a title only God could take from her. If Mary hoped to somehow stir her father's love or pity for her, she had misplayed her hand.

Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury
Henry dissolved Mary's household, ordering her to serve within the household of her sister, pointedly referred to as Princess Elizabeth. A place within the household of a royal sister is not a poor position if one has been raised under the shadow of illegitimacy, but Mary had been raised to expect more. Much more.

The Countess of Salisbury begged to be allowed to serve Mary, offering to cover her household expenses from her own budget, but Henry refused. This was not about his pocketbook, it was about putting these women in their place. He knew that Margaret was a close friend of his first wife and that she had stirred up this brazen defiance in his daughter. Both women would be left wondering if they had made the right choice. Would it have been better to hand over the jewels and concede to being called Lady Mary?

Hindsight did not benefit Mary as she was bundled away to join her sister's household at Hatfield House just before Christmas 1533. The battle lines were drawn between Mary and her father, but she would eventually have her victory.



Additional Reading:
The First Queen of England by Linda Porter
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury 1473-1541 by Hazel Pierce

Thursday, March 2, 2017

From the Scriptorium: March 2017


March 2017 Edition



Queen of Martyrs is available for pre-order on Kindle!

I am thrilled with the feedback that I have received so far from beta readers and am eager to release Mary's story to the world. If you order today, it will be delivered to your Kindle bright and early on April 12!

'God save the Queen! God save our good Queen Mary!'

When these words rang out over England, Mary Tudor thought her troubles were over. She could put her painful past - the loss of her mother and mistreatment at the hands of her father - behind her.

With her accession to the throne, Mary set out to restore Catholicism in England and find the love of a husband that she had long desired. But the tragedies in Mary's life were far from over. How did a gentle, pious woman become known as 'Bloody Mary'?





Featured Reviews

Read the first Goodreads review of Queen of Martyrs!

Plantagenet Princess, Tudor Queen on Knight of Angels

Faithful Traitor on Themis-Athena's Garden of Books

Over the Deep on Amazon



Upcoming Event


Join me for An Evening with An Author at the Michigan Library Association Spring Institute in Frankenmuth, MI. Proceeds from this event will support local children's literacy efforts. 

Tickets are on sale now.  I look forward to seeing you there!




In the News

This month I was excited to be invited to History Rocks! Check out my post discussing some strong women who may have been bastardized princess but went on to become queens.

The Fine Line Between Bastard and Princess

I also celebrated the birthday of Queen Mary I with a post at English Historical Fiction Authors that challenges readers to rethink their assumptions about 'Bloody Mary'. 

The Unpopular Tudor


Did you miss it?

Historical fiction author Suzy Henderson wrote a wonderful post for my blog this month on the sacrificial work of Sir Archibald McIndoe during World War II. Check out this amazing story that served as her inspiration for her novel, The Beauty Shop.

Hope in the Midst of War

My post on Reginald Pole receiving news of his mother's execution has skyrocketed to the top of my most viewed articles. I am happy to discover that I am not the only one intrigued by the tragic Pole family.

Reginald Pole Learns of his Mother's Execution


You can also catch up with my Historic Places blog series and take a virtual tour of some amazing destinations!

I have some wonderful guests and posts planned for March, so stay tuned! Subscribe to my blog using the form at the right to make sure you don't miss a thing. You can also follow me on Facebook or Twitter.

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

The Hazards of Being King

Today, I am excited to welcome historical fiction author Trisha Hughes to my blog to celebrate the release of her epic new novel, Vikings to Virgin - The Hazards of Being King. It is the first installment in a planned V to V trilogy. Trisha joins us to discuss her inspiration for such a sweeping story covering English history through the middle ages. Welcome, Trisha!


~ Samantha

Guest post by Trisha Hughes


History has always been a fascination for me and after years of devouring everything I could on British monarchy, it seemed only logical for me to begin putting my findings down on paper. What I discovered were kings who ruled for only a few months and some who ruled for over fifty years. There were also some who should never have ruled at all. It would seem that in history, to be an English king and to be murdered was no more than a hazard of the job. King after king developed and years later, a complete book finally emerged. But the words, ‘Would anyone actually want to read a history book?’ rang loudly in my ears. Until I read a quote by Rudyard Kipling. ‘If history were taught in the form of stories, it would never be forgotten.’

So with those words ringing in my ears, that’s what I decided to do. I told a story of kings who struggled to keep their throne, of horrendous bloody battles, of tiny boys becoming rulers, of ruthless usurpers and of queens who proved to be more powerful than anyone could have ever imagined. I wrote of invading armies, of rival family members, of conspiracies and I wrote of the vain, the corrupt, the adulterers, the swindlers and the cowards. These people all had one thing in common: during their own lifetimes they were the most powerful people in the land.

My story started when Britain was just a race of people struggling to survive, well before the Romans or the Vikings invaded Britain and I continued through to the end of Queen Mary I’s reign when Queen Elizabeth I stepped up to the throne. Very soon, the first book in my ‘V 2 V’ trilogy, ‘Vikings to Virgin – the Hazards of being King’, was complete.

If you ask most people which part of history they find most interesting, the answer is often the Tudors. Their dynasty began in a bloodbath when Henry Tudor, who barely had a drop of royal blood coursing through his veins, usurped the throne. His descendants weren’t a shy lot and they followed on with gusto.

But Henry’s dynasty wasn’t the only one that started with brazen usurpation. Britain’s history goes back much further than that. First there were the Romans, then the Saxons followed by Sweyne Forkbeard and the Vikings who invaded England in 960 AD. In 1066 AD, the Normans led by William the Conqueror took over and from there, the Plantagenet dynasty soon surfaced in violence and brutality after the throne see-sawed between King Stephen and Queen Matilda. Finally it settled with Matilda’s son Henry II, the first of the Plantagenet dynasty.

There’s no doubt about it, the Plantagenets were powerful. They were rough masters and times were violent. Heroes were born but so were villains and their names echo through history. Early Plantagenet years were full of savagery and cruelty but by the end of the dynasty, they had transformed England into a sophisticated revered kingdom. But it was a long hard struggle during which the War of the Roses emerged.

The War of the Roses was basically a terrible family squabble between royal cousins where each house was eager to snatch the crown and the throne of England for themselves away from other family members.

These two royal houses, the symbolic red rose of the Lancasters and the equally symbolic white rose of the Yorks, were both making a claim for the throne.

It ended up being a long and bloody battle with sporadic periods of extreme violence and bloodshed and an unprecedented number of attempts to usurp the throne. It was a dangerous period in history full of unfathomable brutality, shifting alliances, murders, betrayals, plots and the savage elimination of other direct descendants of the Plantagenets.

These uprisings were dramatic and the dubious logic of revenge worked well for all sides. In actual fact, it was a power struggle that comes across as blue-blooded gangsterism with the prime antagonists being members of the landed gentry. Many of them controlled huge estates with powerful alliances, all trying to improve their political position and their own personal lot in life.

The conflict began after the dreadful reign of Richard II and it’s truly understandable why people were glad to see the last of him. But whether Henry IV was any better than Richard and whether people who lived in those times knew the tragedy that was about to unfold is anyone’s guess.

We can probably blame Edward III for all of this. He and his wife had 13 children including 5 strong-minded boys who all reached maturity. He arranged solid marriages for all of them with English heiresses and created the first ever Dukedoms of Cornwall, Clarence, Lancaster, York and Gloucester. Their descendants were the ones fighting each other fiercely for the throne.

Like most families, differences and intrigue slowly emerged and it wasn’t until 1455 with the first Battle at St Albans that anyone even knew there were two sides. This period in time seems to have been an experiment in monarchy as king after king came and went in very quick succession. But as with most rebellions, it left both sides vulnerable since it usually meant that battles were fought ‘to the bitter end’, leaving fewer contenders alive after every battle.

When it comes to brutality, historians point their fingers at Richard III as the one surpassing the rest. Richard III, after all, was the last of the Plantagenet kings who is believed to have placed his nephews in the Tower and ordered their murder to gain the thrown. But for me, much like King John’s dreadful reputation, I’m not convinced that reputation is truly deserved. There were extenuating circumstances for both kings and as with Richard, there were many others who had good reason to want the young princes removed. For instance, there was Margaret Beaufort and her son Henry Tudor who would prove to be ruthless beyond imagination. And let’s not forget that if the princes were indeed alive, both Richard and Henry would have wanted them out of the way.

It’s been suggested by some historians that Richard had stashed the princes in the Tower of London for safe keeping while he ruled in peace. It has also been suggested that it was in fact Henry Tudor, when he was King Henry VII, who had the princes executed between June and July of 1486 when his stepfather, Lord Stanley, (who was married to Henry’s mother Margaret Beaufort), was High Constable of the Tower two years later. Richard was long gone by then. It was only after this date that orders went out to circulate the story that Richard had killed the princes. This could easily have been to cover up Henry’s own involvement in their murder. It has also been suggested that Elizabeth Woodville knew that this story was false, and so Henry had to have her ‘silenced’ by confining her to a nunnery where she died six years later.

The story of the kings and queens of England is a wonderful drama and far more surprising than you might think. Times were brutal and the royals felt the need to take certain measures into their own hands. It was hard enough to snatch the throne for themselves. Keeping it was even harder. In this first book of my trilogy, ‘Vikings to Virgin – The Hazards of being King’, I tell the story of British Monarchs from the early Vikings to Queen Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, as they walked, ran, stumbled and bled through the centuries.

And I’ve loved every minute of it.


About the Author

Trisha Hughes started her writing career with her autobiography ‘Daughters of Nazareth’ eighteen years ago. The debut novel was first published by Pan Macmillan Australia and became a bestseller in 1997 beating the current Stephen King book to the top 10 bestsellers at the time.  Since then she has discovered a thirst for writing.  She’s written crime novels but her latest book, the first in her ‘V 2 V’ trilogy, ‘Vikings to Virgin – The Hazards of being King’ is her passion and due for release on 28th February 2017. She is currently working on the second in the series ‘Virgin to Victoria – The Queen is dead. Long live the Queen.’

Connect with Trisha

 Trisha’s Website: www.trishahughesauthor.com
                           Or: www.vikingstovirgin.com


Thursday, February 23, 2017

Reginald Pole Learns of his Mother's Execution

Why examine this little snippet of history? We know that Margaret Pole was horridly executed on Henry VIII's orders, and we know that Reginald Pole was safely away from England at the time. I think it is important to look at how Reginald took this news because I have read some opinions that Reginald was bitter toward his mother for his dedication to the church. Based on studying both of these historical figures, I have not found evidence of that. Yet even Hilary Mantel states it as fact.

If Reginald ever truly did harbor negative feelings toward his mother, he had certainly overcome them long before her death. He also was not formally dedicated to the church until he did so under his own power as an adult. In truth, Margaret had sent Reginald to be educated at the king's expense, both of them recognizing his unusual aptitude for learning. Long after he was out from under the rule of his mother, Reginald became a Cardinal, though he would not become an ordained priest until 1556, long after Margaret's death.

Having clarified that, Reginald was grief-stricken by the death of his mother, which closely followed the execution of his oldest brother, Henry Pole Baron Montague. Reginald was in Capranica, having recently left Regensburg, when he received the news. (The medieval center of Regensburg is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Now in Germany, during Pole's time it was in the Duchy of Bavaria.)  He had been there as part of a conference to discuss the Biblical issue of justification, a failed attempt based upon the city's conversion to Lutheranism by the following year. Pole was one of the few legates looking for compromise, a habit that would lead one contemporary to say, "He has been very unfortunate . . . being considered a Lutheran in Rome, in Germany a papist."

We do not know Pole's immediate reaction to his mother's death, but sometime later when he repeated the news to a friend he retreated into private prayer for an hour, leaving his companion to worry about the state of his health and well-being some weeks or months after the fact. Once he had composed himself, Pole attempted to maintain a strong public face emphasizing the fact that his private loss was a gain to the church, even his carefully controlled words reveal some of his grief.

Until now I have believed that the lord God has given me the grace to be the son of one of the best and most honored ladies of England and I have gloried in that and given thanks to His Divine Majesty. But he has wished to honor me more and increase my obligation, for he has also made me the son of a martyr, whom that king, because she was constant in the Catholic faith, has had publicly decapitated, even though she was more than seventy years old (she was actually 67) and his aunt. Thus he (King Henry VIII) has rewarded the efforts which she took for a long time in raising his daughter (Princess Mary to whom Margaret was governess). God be praised and thanked.

To the abundant letters of condolence received by Pole he would reply that they were blessed to have one more advocate in heaven. Reginald was a man of staunch faith and controlled emotions, but he could not completely hide his sadness at the harsh treatment of his mother.

Some of this may have been induced by guilt. One of the reasons the Pole family in England was targeted by Henry VIII was due to their refusal to abandon the Catholic faith in favor of Henry's new Church of England. Reginald had written to Henry many times criticizing his actions and begging him to return to God. Henry, never one to take criticism well, sent assassins after Reginald. Failing this, he turned to Reginald's family. It was not difficult to do something that could be construed as treason in Henry's England, but, in Margaret's case, she was never charged or given a trial during her two years of imprisonment before her execution.

Even Pope Paul III recognized the depth of Reginald's grief, giving him extra time away from Rome and saying that he would spare him discussion of the matter. Reginald wrote to a woman named Colonna that he looked to her now as a mother and that none had consoled him better than she. He also spent much of the summer of 1541 closeted with Psalms in study and meditation.

Reginald Pole spent the remainder of his life striving for reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the reformers. His position as a Cardinal made him untrustworthy to Lutherans, while his willingness to listen to opposition and concede that some of their arguments made sense put him under investigation by the Inquisition. The last years of his life were spent with Queen Mary I in England, assisting with her attempt at counter-reformation there. He died, a Cardinal of the Catholic Church and Archbishop of Canterbury of the Church of England, on November 17, 1558, the same day as Queen Mary.


For more on Reginald Pole, I recommend Thomas F Mayer's Reginald Pole: Prince & Prophet.