Jesus and Brian

Congratulations to my former PhD supervisor, Dr William R. Telford, on the publication of Jesus and Brian. The books is a collection of essays exploring the life and times of Jesus through Monty Python's Life of Brian. Dr Telford writes the first essay, 'Monty Python's Life of Brian and the Jesus Film' - Great stuff!

The book is featured on its own page on the publisher's website: http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/jesus-and-brian-9780567658319/ and it is available from all the usual outlets.

Interview with Josephine Wilkinson on Mary Boleyn

This interview was conducted by SARAH BRYSON and published on her website Queen-to-History (http://queentohistory.com/)

Sarah: What attracted you to write a book about Mary Boleyn?

Josephine: To be honest, I had no interest in writing about Mary Boleyn when the idea was first suggested to me and I resisted it for quite some time. This was primarily because I thought there was so little to say about her that such a project would be frustrating and, sadly, a waste of time when there were so many other books to write. At length I allowed myself to be persuaded and I’m glad I did. I found I liked Mary very much, and I loved researching her life and the people in it as well as the places she would have lived, her dresses, portraits and so on. In the end, I found much more than my allocated 50,000 words would allow, but I had to keep it short!

S: What are your thoughts on the whereabouts of Mary Boleyn between 1515 and 1520

J: It is impossible to tell without sound documentary evidence, but it does seem probable that Mary returned to England with the Duchess of Suffolk. It is interesting that the seventeenth-century French novelist, Madame de Lafayette, includes Anne in her novel La Princesse de Clèves (link below), but mentions Mary only in passing. This is because the characters are discussing Princess Elizabeth and this, in turn, leads them to talk about Anne Boleyn and her life in France. Mary is mentioned only once as the mistress of Henry VIII, and she is not associated with France. As to where she was when she returned home, I can only speculate that she remained with her family until her marriage was arranged, although it is not impossible that she served at court.

S: Do you think Mary had an affair with Francis I?

J: I think she was possibly seduced by François, which is not the same thing. Also, François was probably bragging a bit to annoy Henry!

S: Who do you think fathered Mary Boleyn’s children, Catherine and Henry Carey?

J: I think there’s a very good chance that Henry fathered Catherine Carey, but I’m really not so sure about Henry Carey. Because there is no concrete evidence either way, it is difficult to talk in absolutes; however, there is strong circumstantial evidence, particularly the information contained in Sir Francis Knollys’s Latin dictionary. If the king did father him, then the love in which Henry Carey was conceived had died before he was born.

S: What qualities do you most admire in Mary Boleyn?

J: I think I admire her strength of character most of all and the fact that she knew her own mind. She does not appear to have been the favourite child of the family, where she comes across almost as an outsider. Anne and George were close, but Mary did not fit into their world. This is a difficult situation to be in, but she managed it perfectly. I also admire her determination - she married a man out of love, which was unacceptable for a woman of her status, but she stuck to her guns and lived happily with him for the rest of her life.

S: If you could find out one more piece of previously unknown information about Mary Boleyn what would you wish that to be?

J: I would like to find something about her in a household book or some other document that would confirm her whereabouts before her marriage. Primarily, though, I regret that more of Mary’s letters no longer exist. The one she wrote to Cromwell does not show her in the best light, although her anger and bitterness are understandable. If we had more of her letters, we could better discern her character and gain greater access to her inner thoughts, this would allow us a more rounded picture of her.

S: When she was older Anne Boleyn appeared to be closer to her younger brother George, what are your thoughts regarding Mary and Anne Boleyn’s relationship?

J: See above!

S: Do you think Mary Boleyn was grieved at the loss of her sister and brother despite being banished from court and not being able to see them in their final years?

J: Yes, without doubt. Mary had her differences with her family and with Anne especially, and she had been banished from court. This saved her life, but it also deprived her of any chance of resolving those differences, so she would have had no real sense of closure. This could only have increased her grief.

Charity Wakefield as Mary Boleyn in the BBC production of Wolf Hall

S: What are your thoughts regarding the recent portrayal of Mary Boleyn in Hilary Mantel’s “Wolf Hall”?

J: Actually, I like Wolf Hall very much (although my favourite Mantel remains A Place of Greater Safety), and I really enjoyed the BBC adaptation. Mary is portrayed as an unhappy woman, although she tries to cover up her unhappiness by making caustic remarks about Anne and flirting with Cromwell - but how much of this is the ‘real’ Mary, and how much of it is Cromwell’s perception of her? One thing I especially love about Mantel is her characterisation and the way she makes readers think, and just when you think you understand a character, she throws you off, genius writing!

It is one of my greatest regrets that people seem to be losing their ability to understand literature (and its filmed adaptations) for the art it is; instead, they try to treat it as they would history and get indignant about what they see as libellous interpretations and portrayals of historical characters.

S: What’s next for Josephine Wilkinson?

J: I have just completed a biography of my favourite of Henry’s wives, Katherine Howard. I revisited all the original documents in the National Archives and came up with some fascinating material. The book is due out in April of next year.

Princesse de Clèves link:

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/nav/i/category/academic/series/general/owc/9780199539178/R/browse+by+author/l/n/4294926180.do

Josephine on Anne Boleyn by Paul Friedmann

This interview was originally published in March 2013 on the blog https://theroyalfirm.wordpress.com/

Q1: Paul Friedmann wrote his two-volume biography of Anne Boleyn in the 1884 and the book is still used as a standard of reference by historians today. After over 100 years, why do you think this book remains relevant?

I think any work that is well researched and written in such an accessible and commanding way will always be an important reference for researchers, whatever era they live in and whether or not they agree with the author’s conclusions. Paul Friedmann, of course, worked extensively with original documents - not as they are printed in Letters and Papers, but the actual documents themselves, which are held in various archives and libraries across Europe, so his work will always stand as a valuable source.

Q2: You are credited as an editor of the new edition of Friedmann’s book. What kinds of edits or revisions did you contribute to the latest edition of the book?

My work as an editor of this work was purely technical - I transcribed the document from PDF into Word and ensured that everything came out correctly. This meant removing the marginal notes, checking that the text had come out correctly in each language and ironing out the funny characters that can crop up when software misreads certain letters and numbers. I also redid the index to match the new pagination. I did not revise Friedmann’s work in any way, but that was not the object.

Q3: You’ve published several books about the Tudors and also specifically about Anne Boleyn. How did it come about that you were asked to be an editor of Friedmann’s book? Why was this project of interest to you?

My commissioning editor had looked through the annotated bibliography that I included with my Anne Boleyn book and found the Friedmann title listed. He asked me if I thought it was worth publishing it in a new volume. I agreed that it was a very good idea, especially since no new addition had been done at the time and the original work was difficult to get hold of. I have always admired Friedmann’s work and thought it deserved a wider readership.

Q4: One of the reasons Henry VIII remains so famous is his six wives, of whom Anne Boleyn is perhaps the most well-known. Why do you think Anne Boleyn endures as a historical figure? What is it about her that contemporary people find so interesting?

Anne’s primary interest is that she is the only anointed and crowned queen of England to be executed (so far!). The story of how that happened is still, to some extent, shrouded in mystery. Although scholars are now more aware of the machinations of the Tudor court, there remain several theories about why Anne fell.

Then there is Anne herself. She was clearly a woman of great character, self-aware, self-assured and determined to live according to her personal codes of honour and right. She was a very intelligent woman, intellectual and artistically talented. She appeals to people today for all these reasons, but also because she held her own against a predatory and difficult authority figure, she won her man on her own terms and she exemplifies the female struggle against the ’glass ceiling’. It was only in the last few weeks that it all became unstuck; until then, she almost had it all.

Q5: Friedmann’s book is filled with rich details about the people and society in which Henry VIII and

Anne Boleyn lived. How do these descriptions of the Tudor world make Freidmann’s book unique? Do you feel this detail helps the reader to better understand the world in which Anne Boleyn lived?

I’m not sure Friedmann’s book is unique in that respect - Elizabeth Benger wrote a lovely biography of Anne which went into detail about the Tudor world, and Agnes Strickland included a biography of Anne in her Queens of England series. Friedmann’s particular strength lies in his extensive use of original sources and his careful analysis of them. He also delved more deeply into the politics of the period, showing the importance of Anne’s story in Europe as a whole. Certainly such details help readers understand Anne’s world, and this is essential for assessing Anne, her actions and her ultimate fate.

Q6: Does Friedmann’s book contain any ideas or theories that have been proven outdated by contemporary scholars? If so, did your edits revise these ideas or theories?

As I mentioned above, I made no revisions, but simply produced a Word copy of the biography. My publisher then decided what he would do with it. Friedmann work is a classic and his theories stand alongside those of modern historians, especially as there is still disagreement regarding the causes of Anne’s fall.

Q7: Is there anything about this Friedmann’s book that you’d like to bring to the reader’s attention?

If readers can get hold of the original two-volume work, they might find Friedmann’s own introduction very interesting. Unfortunately me editor did not think it necessary to print it. Volume one also contains a full and very useful chronology of events. It always makes me smile when I read Friedmann’s words (pp.250-1): ‘After a time their [the people’s] interest in Anne’s fate died out’ - if only he could have seen into the future! I also admire his modesty when he states (p.255): ‘My object has been to show that very little is known of the events of those times, and that the history of Henry’s first divorce and of the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn has still to be written.’ Certainly, historians have had new things to contribute, but Friedmann produced a wonderful piece of scholarship, a classic study.

Henry XXVIII and Anne Boleyn

Here is an excerpt from one of my ongoing private studies of puppets and their history:

It was not unknown for puppets to be conscripted into the service of one political cause or another. The Russian version of Mr Punch, Petrushka, is a famous, if tragic example. Another is Mr Punch himself who, by the early twentieth century, had become such a well-known figure that he could be used for such purposes to great effect. Mr Punch was brought in to comment on one of the several political upheavals that threatened to rock the country in the early part of the twentieth century: the emerging suffragette movement.

At the time, Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree’s production of Shakespeare’s Henry VIII, was playing at Her Majesty’s Theatre. Beerbohn Tree’s production was enormously popular, accomplishing no less than 254 consecutive performances between September 1910 and April 1911. Naturally, such a success came to the attention of the mountebanks and puppet showmen, and a Punch and Judy show opened for business close to the theatre.

In a tall booth, at ten in the morning, the notorious puppet took to the playboard, his performance heralded by the sound of the tolling bell. As the curtain rose to reveal the setting within, Mr Punch emerged and began, in his customary way, to insult the audience, before retreating into the confines of his colourful booth.

Then, just as the audience began to wonder what might happen next, Mr Punch reappeared dressed as King Henry XXVIII. ‘It was all very well, he began (and here, we must try to imagine Henry VIII speaking with Punch’s squeaky voice!), ‘for the ordinary run of fatheads to sit through a long-winded play by tiresome William,’ but Mr Punch had rewritten the bard. He had brought him up to date, ‘cut out some superfluous wheezy twaddle and verbiage’ and come up with a new play, ‘hot of the griddle.’

In Mr Punch’s version, the ‘Merry Monarch’ decided it would be great fun to host a beauty show. His eight wives were shepherded out to cast their vote, if they so wished. Seven of the wives were wise enough to turn down the invitation, but one was more than keen to have her say. This lady was none other than Anne Boleyn, who ‘longed for liberty’. To the dismay of the royal family, who formed an illustrious part of the audience, Henry decided that his seven wise wives, ‘being worthy English wives’ should be allowed to live. As to Anne Boleyn, she must be beheaded, the price of her outspokenness. As with all good Punch and Judy shows, the executioner appears on cue. All geared up to cut off Anne’s head, his axe slipped and he struck Henry in the face instead, taking his off head in a single stroke.

The play retains some of the elements that were characteristic of the ancient performances. There is the bawdy humour, the sense of irreverence to all and sundry, it plays upon factors meaningful to its time and it has a strong moral tone. In this case, it tacitly, albeit unintentionally, supports the suffragette movement by finishing off one who would suppress their cause.

Naturally, being a variation of Punch and Judy, it takes astonishing liberties with historical fact. Henry is described as the ‘Merry Monarch’, an epithet that was actually applied to Charles II. Henry was ‘Bluff King Hal’.(1) Henry has eight wives in this play as opposed to the six he actually had; but perhaps, like Mr Punch, Henry’s mistresses were also given starring roles. Although the Tudor court was known for its pageants and spectacles, as were many European courts at the time, beauty contests were unknown. Moreover, the idea that a woman, even a queen, would be called upon to cast a vote was definitely unheard of. The seven wives who abstained were considered ‘wise’, as indeed they were; it would be foolhardy for a woman to express an opinion, for what would happen should she disagree with the king? The seven, their silence and submission being seen as virtuous, fulfilled their proper roles as wives.

This allowed them to live - even Katherine Howard survives this story. Anne Boleyn, however, was different. She is every bit as strong-willed and independent as her historical counterpart, whose character of Perseverance continues to echo through the centuries since she first danced the part. She is depicted as the prototypical feminist fighting for the ultimate feminist cause, the Suffragette Movement. Her ‘outspokenness’, as it is called here, earned her the wrath of her husband, who decided she must be beheaded. No elegant and efficient French swordsman for Mr Punch’s Anne, she must make do with the axe. However, the executioner is as incompetent as ever he is. This reincarnation of Jack Ketch makes to behead Anne but accidentally kills Henry instead. Here is poetic justice. The historical Anne may have fallen victim to a cruel and tyrannical king, but, thanks to Mr Punch, she at last got her revenge.

Note:

Bluff King Hal was full of beans
He married half a dozen queens
For three called Kate they cried the banns
And one called Jane, and a couple of Annes.

Nerdalicious interview about the Princes in the Tower

Olga at Nerdalicious has interviewed me about the Princes, Richard III and my book, The Princes in the Tower. Thank you, Olga, the page looks great!

 

http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/the-princes-in-the-tower-with-josephine-wilkinson/

The Princes in the Tower

I am excited to announce the publication of my new book, The Princes in the Tower, in early October 2013.

 

In the search for who killed the Princes in the Tower, their uncle, King Richard III has always been the clear favourite. It is easy to see why. The Princes disappeared while under his care. They disappeared after his ‘usurpation’. Rumour had it that Richard had murdered them. He made no attempt to produce the boys, even though doing so would have proved the rumours false, cleared his name and gone some way to restoring public support. Richard regarded his nephews as a threat to his safety, giving him a good motive for killing them. That Richard imprisoned them in the Tower is proof of his intentions, not only to take the throne, but to do away with his nephews, one of whom was the rightful king, the other the rightful heir presumptive. But is it really as simple as that? The following extract is taken from the introduction:

In June 1483 the twelve-year-old King Edward V was deposed. His place was taken by his uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who acceded as King Richard III. Having been educated to rule, nurtured in the belief that he would one day wear his father’s crown and occupy his throne, the boy, once so independent of mind, so impatient to assert himself and make his mark on the world, was now watched over by those appointed by the new king, an uncle he barely knew.

Twelve days after his coronation, Richard III issued an official warrant authorising the payment of wages to those who had provided services to the late Edward IV and to ‘Edward Bastard late called king Edward the Vth.’ The new king then set out on progress, leaving his unseated predecessor lodged with his younger brother in their sumptuous royal apartments within the Tower. What happened to them next has been a matter of scholarly debate ever since.

The story of the Princes in the Tower is so intricately interwoven with that of Richard III that it is impossible to write about one and not the other. All too easily, however, the mystery of the Princes can ‘hijack’ a biography of Richard III so that, following the coronation and the royal progress to the north, the narrative gives way to a discussion of whether or not he killed his nephews. Bosworth then comes suddenly upon the reader, and is often presented as Richard’s just deserts or a tragedy according to which way the author had settled the ‘did-he-or-did-he-not’ question. There is very good reason for this, of course; the subject is so deeply involved that it is fully deserving of study in its own right.

As I embarked on the second volume of my biography of Richard III, I found things going surprisingly smoothly - until I reached the point where I had to talk about what happened to Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. I knew that everything that came after would be shaped by whatever conclusion I drew regarding their fate. I could not ignore the boys. Omitting any mention of them from an account that would not even have been possible without their removal was unacceptable. On the other hand, I could not allow their story to swamp my biography of Richard.

In my dilemma, I set Richard aside for a while and returned to previous researches I had made into the Princes’ story over a period of several years. Having reinvestigated the original sources, I was able to revise some of what I had written previously. I suddenly found myself with a mass of material that, with a few tweaks and adjustments to eliminate, as far as possible, repetition, could be published as a collection of discrete essays, if not a running narrative of the Princes in the Tower. I also wrote a new essay entitled ‘The Rumour’.

This book, then, is largely the result of that work. It is a text-based study of the Princes applying a ‘source, form and redaction’ approach to the original sources. It does not represent all the research I did during that period, but it does include what are, in my opinion, the most important studies. Nor does it claim to be exhaustive.

Dealing with the Princes acted as a catharsis which, hopefully, should enable me to continue my biography of Richard III, in which he is the leading man and not a supporting actor in the story of his nephews.

Following this introduction, the book presents two essays, or more accurately, short biographies of the Princes themselves: Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. This gives the reader some idea of who the Princes were as people in their own right; it attempts to emphasise their importance and ensures their inclusion in a history that would not have been possible without them.

The next essay is an analysis of Richard’s Act of Settlement: Titulus Regius. It looks at who was behind this important and intriguing document, presenting and explaining its content, and showing how it applied to the state of the realm as it was perceived to stand following Edward IV’s death and, perhaps more importantly, how it applied to Richard.

The approach changes now, with the following four essays dedicated to those who, after Richard III, are most popularly believed to have been responsible for the murder of the Princes. These are John Howard, whose inheritance of the dukedom of Norfolk has been interpreted as his reward for doing away with the Princes, while evidence contained in his Household Books that he carried out mysterious building work at ‘la Tour’ appears to strengthen the case against him. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham is a favourite with many. His motives for murder vary, but can be condensed into ambition both personal and dynastic, regret for having helped Richard to the throne and greed. Sir James Tyrell, a loyal servant of Edward IV, but more especially associated with Richard III, is considered by some to have murdered the Princes, a belief predicated on his alleged confession to the crime. Finally, Henry VII, a firm favourite among ‘revisionists,’ certainly had a very strong motive for murdering the Princes. Having restored the legitimacy of their sister, Elizabeth of York, he also restored that of her brothers, effectively restoring Edward V as heir to the Yorkist throne.  Perhaps Henry's behaviour towards their mother reveals that she knew something more than he was comfortable with, but what are we to make of how he treated the various pretenders to his throne?

Returning to more specifically to textual evidence, the next essay looks at Sir Thomas More’s History of King Richard III, providing an analysis of the narrative, including its form, context and author intent.

The essay following, entitled ‘The Rumour’, was written especially for this collection. It is still commonly believed by some that the accusation that Richard murdered his nephews originated with Tudor sources. This essay shows beyond doubt that this was not so. In an exercise of what might be called ‘textual archaeology’, this study begins by placing the earliest sources to mention the Princes following the new King Edward V’s entrance to London into the order in which first they appeared. In so doing, it is possible to pinpoint precisely when Richard III’s name became linked with the fate of the ‘Princes in the Tower’ and why. Focusing on the all-important rumour, it shows when it first emerged, the context in which it arose, what purpose it served, who could have devised it and who was responsible for spreading it.

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that whatever happened to the Princes happened during Richard's reign, and it is there that we will find the answers - providing we ask the right questions. The book ends with a short conclusion. It is fully referenced and includes a bibliography.