Historical Conflicts that You Don't Find in Contemporaries

Historical Conflicts that You Don't Find in Contemporaries

This topic came up when a friend of mine used the term illegitimate and her teenage nieces asked what it meant. So obviously being illegitimate wouldn't be a problem of conflict in a contemporary story.

While today illegitimacy doesn't carry much weight, it meant a great deal in the Middle Ages.

We've all read romances where the hero is illegitimate. Today the term bastard is a pejorative about a man's character. But in the Middle Ages it was a description of a man's birth. William the Conqueror, later William I of England, as a boy was known as William the Bastard of Normandy, as his parents weren't married. His father did, however, acknowledge William and name him as his heir as he had no other son.

If you want to add conflict to your story by making the hero illegitimate, then realize how significant that stigma of illegitimacy could be. This is why bastard (description of birth, not character) son's either acknowledged or unacknowledged are always good for conflict, especially in a Medieval.

In the Middle Ages upper class and noble marriages were a business arrangement between two families for political, social or economic reason. (que the song What's Love Got To Do With It). This one of the reasons that a marriage of convenience works so well in Medievals, as often the bride and/or groom didn't choose his partner, but they were chosen for them.

And to preserve these political, social or economic ties, inheritance was important. Very important when talking about the landed aristocracy. Doubly true in countries where primogenitor, where to keep the land intact, the oldest son inherited it all.

So direct descent, or legitimacy was necessary to inherit. And the problem?

Now everyone knows who a baby's mother is (why there was always observers when a queen gave birth). But how do you know who the baby's father is? You have to take the mother's word for it. That's why a woman's virginity was the dowry that she brought her husband.

This is the value of a virtuous woman for a wife. A man knows the son who will inherit his property is his. You can see this Regency area novels, where a wife, if she had given her husband and heir and a spare (two sons), then she might take a lover if she is discreet.

Notice that most of this deals with male illegitimacy, not female. Being an illegitimate female was a minor consideration to that of a male, as most inheritance was thought the male line. Although, it happens in novels, illegitimate sons were rarely 'legitimized', though often acknowledged, especially if they turned out to be, or could be used as an asset to the family.

Henry VIII, while in desperate need for a son, only acknowledged Henry FitzRoy, making him the Duke of Richmond and Somerset.

This was a special problem for reigning monarchs. Remember this was the age of the diving right of kings. Scot kings who ruled Scotland by the divine right were God's stewards of Scotland. The 'd' in steward became a 't' (say both and see how similar) and the old spelling of the royal house of Scotland was Stewart. Since kings ruled by the grace of God, it was necessary the legitimate heir inherit. If a non-qualified person, an illegitimate person (one without the grace of God behind him), it was an invitation to disaster for the entire country. There would be invasions, famine or plague to show the wrath of God, who no longer protected the king and country.

A good example of how a country must have a legitimate rule can be seen at the death of Edward VI, the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour in 1553. By this time the Protestant Reformation had a firm hold in England, and the majority of the people were Protestant. However, the oldest daughter of Henry VIII was Mary Tudor, a devout Catholic.

If she became queen it was obvious that she wold try to reconcile the country to the Catholic Church. Thus causing a repeat of the unrest caused by Henry VIII's break with the Pope. There was an attempt to supplant Mary with Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant. But even in the face of more religious turmoil, the overwhelming support for Mary, as the legitimate heir, put her on the throne of England.

Even in the next century, when Oliver Cromwell died the best the Commonwealth could come up with for continuing ruling was Cromwell's son, Richard - an implicit legitimacy in a ruler. And of course this didn't work out, and Charles II was recalled from exile an declared king with the Restoration, thus proving that legitimacy was very important.

PS - see my previous post about love/hate technology. It took me three times to get this blog posted.

So, if you're considering a bastard for your hero, I hope this helps.

Hollywood's View of History

For the most part, writers of historical romance strive for accuracy in capturing historical events and characters. Can the same be said of Hollywood?

I’d suspect that ninety-nine percent of book editors would run screaming from a plot that featured a beautiful, tempting Pocahontas and a very studly Captain John Smith…after all, history tells us that Pocahontas was about seven when Smith and his crew landed in Jamestown in 1607. The New World, starring Colin Farrell as Captain John Smith (who obviously was not cast due to a striking resemblance to the legendary colonist) highlighted the romantic attraction between Smith and a teenaged Pocahontas, portrayed by a striking young actress, Q’orianka Kilcher.

Before its release, the studio was said to have deleted several love scenes deemed too steamy between the nearly thirty-year old actor and the fourteen year-old actress. Besides the “ick” factor here, this romance is completely inaccurate. Many other scenes in the movie are historically wrong as well, but the romance is the most glaring example of Hollywood mauling the truth in this film.

Disney’s Pocahontas isn’t quite as bad, but as a teacher who works with children who have to learn the facts about the Jamestown expedition and its key players, it’s difficult to overcome the portrayals of Pocahontas as someone who looks like Barbie’s Native American cousin and Captain John Smith as Jamestown Expedition Ken. At least, that’s a fantasy, complete with the requisite Disney talking animals, and that offers a teaching point about fiction versus non-fiction.

Hollywood has always taken liberties with the truth...huge liberties, in some cases. Henry VIII is portrayed as a studly hunk in many films, not a gout-ridden, portly monarch. Of course, some would say that Henry was not always fat and was known to be rather athletic in his youth, but how on Earth did anyone decide to cast gorgeous, dark Eric Bana as the monarch in The Other Boleyn Girl ? The portrait of Henry VIII in his twenties shows a man who certainly would not have made a girl lose her head (yes, I know…such a bad pun) if he were not a monarch.

Of course, The Tudors casting of Jonathan Rhys Meyers isn’t any more visually accurate, although I think he captures the moods and manipulations of Henry far more convincingly than hulky Eric Bana (yes, another bad pun), who came across to me as a rather dull-witted monarch.

I could go on and on about Hollywood’s historical inaccuracies. Bonnie and Clyde portrayed the notorious bank robbers as lovers on the run, not the cold-blooded killers they were. Braveheart depicts a kilt-clad Mel Gibson even though kilts weren’t worn in Scotland until about three hundred years after William Wallace died. More remarkably, the film depicts Wallace as the father of Edward III, who was born seven years after Wallace’s death (and I thought nine months was a long time to be pregnant). Mel was at it again with The Patriot, in which he almost single-handedly wins a battle that history recorded as a win for the British…a minor detail, I suppose, in the minds of Hollywood. Gladiator’s villain, Emperor Commodus, was certainly not a nice guy, but it’s believed his father died of disease, not at Commodus’ hand. Commodus was murdered after ruling for more than a decade…in his bathtub, not fighting in a gladiator’s ring. I suppose a guy dying in his bathtub would not have created the heroic ending the folks behind Gladiator were looking for, and as I adore Russell Crowe, I’ll forgive this particular inaccuracy.

What about movies that got it right, or at least, close to right? Are there any? Tombstone and Wyatt Earp might have played loosely with the truth and selectively omitted some of Earp’s less than favorable qualities, but both films portray the era with a feel for the times. Plus, Tombstone has Michael Biehn as Johnny Ringo...I just love the actor in that character and root for the villain, much to my husband's chagrin. Cinderella Man is more of an essay about the hardships of the Depression than a boxing movie, and Russell Crowe depicts Jim Braddock with a feel for the desperation of a man during those times trying to keep his family afloat. The Untouchables, while depicting Eliot Ness and his men as almost saintly, does capture the flavor of the times while depicting the truth…all the gun power in Chicago couldn't bring Capone down, but crooked income tax returns did.

What do you think of Hollywood’s view of history? Could authors get away with the gross inaccuracies sometimes found in films? I’m curiously awaiting the new film, Public Enemies, which portrays John Dillinger and Melvin Purvis. Of course, the casting of Johnny Depp as Dillinger and Christian Bale as Purvis (an obvious choice, given that Purvis was about 5’ 4” and looked absolutely nothing like the hunky Bale) might influence my mad dash to the theaters this summer.

All Goodly Sport-The King of Music

The things you learn driving around lost in the Welsh countryside. Did you know that King Henry VIII was an accomplished musician? He played every kind of instrument. Recorder, crumhorn, lute, drums, bagpipes and even the organ. 

Southern Wales is the birthplace of the Tudor Dynasty. During my visit there I was fortunate enough to be able to listen to BBC Radio 3, one of their classical stations. They had all kinds of interesting information about the music they play.  I happened upon a show called In Tune.  The guests that day were a Choral group called Sirinu. I rushed right home (as fast as you can go while being lost) and bought their CD, All Goodly Sport.

Henry was first exposed to music as a young boy. Some believe that the tutor who taught the young prince French, also taught him how to play the lute and from that time forward, Henry was enamored of music. He spent hours a day playing the recorder and even later in life spent hours practicing the organ. But Henry’s favorite instrument always remained the lute.

The king was an accomplished lute player. Many times he played for court visitors who were amazed at his proficiency. One minister from Italy even said that the King took great joy in performing his music.

King Henry was also a composer. It’s been said that he composed several mass requiems for the organ and hundreds of songs for recorder and horn, some with words, some without. Many of his love letters to various wives were set to music. Today only the scores for thirty-four short songs remain. Here are the lyrics to one of the most well known of them. 

Past Time With Good Company

Past time with good company
I love, and shall until I die
Grutch who lust, but none deny
So god be pleased thus live will I
For my pastance
Hunt, sing and dance
My heart is set;
All goodly sport
For my comfort
Who shall me let?

Youth must have some dalliance
Of good or ill some pastance
Company methinks then best
All throughts and funcies to digest
For idleness is chief mistress
Of vices all: than who can say
But mirth and play
Is best of all?

Company with honesty
Is virtue, vices to flee;
Company is good and ill
But any man hath his free will
The best ensue
The worst eschew:
My mind shall be
Virtue to use
Vice to refuse
Thus shall I use me...

Music played an important part of life in medieval and renaissance times. Every court no matter how large or small had some kind of musician. The hero in my upcoming release, Widow's Peak, was able to get close enough to high level officials because of his skill with instruments. A man could go a long way with just a quill, a psaltry (that's a stringed instrument) and ... well other instruments of pleasure.

Do you play an instrument? Write songs about friends and lovers like Henry? Leave a comment about your musical life and I'll enter you in a contest to win a copy of the official guide book to Pembroke Castle (Where Henry VII was born).

Hanna