Anne's Blog

“Love and marriage, love and marriage, they go together like a horse and carriage” ...well, not so much in medieval times! Margaret of York, Richard III and Edward IV’s sister, was promised to half a dozen men before her brother Edward finally gave her to a brute of a man, Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy. And she never met any of the gentlemen and only met Charles a couple of days before their formal betrothal in Damme, near Bruges, in 1478 when she was the ripe old age of 22. For Edward it was a political win; for Margaret it meant leaving her family and her homeland for ever (well, except for a three-month visit back to England in 1480 to negotiate trade agreements for her new country) and being saddled with a man without scruples and very few morals. Sometimes--in the case of King Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou--one or other had someone stand proxy for them and you might be married before you even saw your husband! Imagine dreaming about your knight in shining armor or you

Rather than me blathering on about Jane Shore, I thought she ought to speak for herself on this 7th day of May when the world will read her story in "Royal Mistress" perhaps for the first time. We chatted recently and here is some of that conversation. AES: How would you describe yourself? JANE:   Much too short, unfortunately. I wish I had some of your inches! I’m told I am pretty, and I know my sister envied my blonde hair, but I think my breasts are too big (can I talk about that or is it impolite--not that I particularly care about that sort of thing) and my neck isn’t long enough for the gorgeous necklaces Edward used to hang on it. I do like the color of my eyes, though. It is very changeable and it gives men a really hard time when they are asked to describe it. They are sea-green--and you know how many different colors the sea can turn. AES: Do you hear that you are supposed to be Edward’s merriest of mistresses? JANE: Ha! Is that what they say? Well, then, let me

... (If I may quote a different Pope from the one in the news recently!) Historical novelists who don't like to mess with history dread being caught out with a glaring error. So far, I've been pretty lucky that my books have passed muster for the most part. A musician friend pointed out that "base" was not the correct spelling for a string on a musical instrument in A ROSE FOR THE CROWN, and that as a former folksinger and guitarist, I should have known how to spell "bass." In the same book, a Richard III Society member (and they are a terrifyingly knowledgeable group to write for!) pointed out that I had the wrong bishopric for Lionel Woodville (I had it right the first time I mentioned him, I hastily add!). Happily, these were found early after publication and subsequent editions of the book were corrected. But those slips were nothing compared with the one caught by the book reviewer in the latest edition of the US Richard III Society's magazine, R

I have to confess I did not set my alarm for 4 a.m. Feb. 4th to listen to the actual broadcast of the DNA results for Richard's bones. I am on vacation in Mexico after a hectic two months of theater and "Royal Mistress" editing and needed my sleep! But when I did get my lazy bones out of bed, it was to see a barrage of emails and Facebook postings telling me that yes, indeed, that skeleton found under the car park in Leicester was Richard's. I almost wept. To be honest, my fellow Richard III Society and I were convinced the results would be positive, but there was nothing like hearing it for real. One of the emails was from a research assistant at BBC's The World distributed in the US by Public Radio International. She wanted me to call and chat about what finding out it was Richard meant to me as a RIII Society member and an historical novelist who writes about Richard and the Wars of the Roses. I have to admit I used to work at a PBS station in Northern New

Spending the weekend with a cold updating the website with my trusty webmaster, Scott, by my side. Bear with me, I am just getting the hang of this blogging business! Before too long, we should know if the skeleton found during an archeological dig in Leicester last summer is indeed that of King Richard III. DNA testing is being done as I write. I have created a separate page, "Richard III in the News," on my website for updates on this exciting development. I especially like the in-depth segment from a Canadian TV show that I have linked to. Of course, even if the bones are Richard's, it still will not clear up that wretched mystery of what happened to the princes in the Tower. Until royal permission is received to study the bones inside the urn in Westminster Abbey again, we will know no more. In the more than 40 years that I have been studying Richard, nothing in his character, nor with regard to a motive, suggested to me that he would have coldheartedly disposed o