Let’s be honest: lockdown sucks!  But it does mean there’s more time for reading.  Over the next couple of weeks, I will review 10 books which all Royal History Geeks should add to their reading list.

Ten years ago, most people had never heard the name Margaret Beaufort.  The mother of the Tudors may have been significant to history, but she was lacking a popular profile.

How times have changed.

Thanks to an explosion of interest in the latter half of the 15^th century, fuelled in part by a wealth of historical fiction, Margaret has shot to fame.  Or perhaps ‘infamy’.

For whatever reason, script writers and novelists have chosen to portray Margaret as a sinister character.  And for many people, fiction has been taken as fact.

It’s time for the truth to be told.  And in ‘the Uncrowned Queen’ that’s exactly what Nicola Tallis sets out to do.

The beginning of the book details the history of the Beaufort family and sets Margaret’s birth in the context of her royal descent from Edward III.  So often the Beauforts are simply a footnote in the Tudor origin story.  Readers will appreciate the attention that Tallis gives them.

As Margaret is born, readers quickly get a sense of how the tumultuous turns of fortune’s wheel will dominate her life.  By the time she is a year old, her father is dead.  She is one of England’s richest heiresses.  But she is also without a protector.

By the age of 13, Margaret is both a widow and a teenage mother.  She marries twice more before playing her famous role in the downfall of Richard III.  Tallis depicts Margaret as a woman who was a natural risk taker but became more cautious following a miscalculation in 1469.  But as Richard’s regime crumbled, she sensed her opportunity.  Once again, she through caution to the wind. 

Upon her son’s ascension, Margaret becomes known as ‘My lady, the King’s mother.’  And from this point on, records become plentiful.  Tallis uses the vast sources to great effect, painting a glorious picture of Margaret’s later year.  Yes, she was pious and invested in learning.  But as her household accounts reveal, she also liked the finer things in life. 

Some have criticised the book for being the ‘account that Margaret would have wanted written.’  One that emphasises Margaret’s qualities but fails to explore some of her less pleasant characteristics.  But all this really means is that the author has spent little time addressing the accusations that popular fiction has thrown Margaret’s way.  And why should she?  They aren’t based on historical fact.

The hardback book is beautifully produced.  Margaret would have been proud to find her portrait positioned above the Beaufort portcullis and inbetween two mythical Yales from the Beaufort crest.  The typeface throughout the biography is both pretty and easy to read.  The book contains two sections of stunning imagery.

To many Royal History Geeks, the outline of Margaret’s life will be well known.  What I particularly like about this book is the colour it adds to the picture.  Descriptions of the houses and castles in which Margaret dwelled helps us picture her in situ.  Analysis of her household accounts give a glimpse into her character.

Misunderstandings around the character of Margaret Beaufort are set to continue.  Such is the power of fiction and social media certainly doesn’t help.  But for people really wanting to delve into the history of the woman who gave birth to the Tudor dynasty, it’s reassuring to know that ‘the truth is out there.’  Much of it can be found in this excellent biography.

Uncrowned Queen, the Fateful Life of Margaret Beaufort, Tudor Matriarch, is available from Amazon.

However, please consider supporting your local book seller.  If you are based in the UK, search for your local book seller at the Book Seller Associations website.

Let’s be honest: lockdown sucks!  But it does mean there’s more time for reading.  Over the next couple of weeks, I will review 10 books which all Royal History Geeks should add to their reading list.

Perhaps it’s the work of fiction writers.  Maybe it’s the discovery of Richard III’s remains.  But whatever the reason, the latter half of the 15^th century has never attracted so much popular attention.  If only we had a wealth of source material to satisfy the curiosity.

And what we do have – records of Parliament, patent rolls and a chronicle or two – focus on the exploits of men.  That’s typical of medieval history.  But it’s only half the story.

The long-running Wars of the Roses were a series of conflicts which saw women step outside their usual sphere of influence.  It was Queen Margaret of Anjou – and not her husband Henry VI – that led the Lancastrian fight back against York in 1460.  It was the plotting of Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville that bought Richard III’s regime crashing down.  It was Margaret of York, not either of her brothers, who came close to destroying Henry Tudor.

It would be tragic if those stories were lost to us.  Thanks to the brilliant ‘Blood Sisters’ by the talented Sarah Gristwood, such a travesty is avoided.

The brilliant book is a collective biography of seven women who were at the centre of events in the latter 1400s.  It records the high-profile exploits of the heroines already mentioned.  But it also shows how women constituted a hidden but powerful network of influence which played a part in shaping politics.  Cecily Neville, Anne Neville and Elizabeth of York would each played a crucial role in shaping our history.  Even if they had to do it through sons, fathers, brothers and husbands.

The book is underpinned by an ocean of research.  Yet every chapter is lively and accessible.  Gristwood began her career as a journalist.  It’s clear that writing remains one of her major gifts.  Despite its length and density, it’s easy to read the book in a few sittings.  Helpfully, given the number of heroines called ‘Margaret’, Gristwood uses culturally appropriate names to help the reader distinguish between them.

Popular historical fiction has partially distorted public understanding of this era.  The book is not written as a response to the beautifully produced but controversial ‘White Queen’ series of 2013.  It was published before the series aired.  But because it covers a similar range of characters it is an essential tool for anyone wanting to separate the fact from fiction.    

There is almost nothing I would change about this work.  It is stunning and studious.  But if I were being picky, I would eliminate Anne Neville from its pages.  I have yet to be convinced that her contribution to history was particularly meaningful.  In my view she should not benefit from the same attention as the remaining six heroines.  But on balance, this is not a significant complaint.  Afterall, to the true Royal History Geek, there’s no such thing as too much history.

In recent years, more attention has been given to the role women played in medieval history.  Fiction in particular has tended to suggest that they were the prime instigators of social shifts and political upsets.  As a feminist this appeals to me.  As a historian I’m more cautious. 

But in this researched and readable account, Gristwood demonstrates beyond doubt that this was a time when women broke the mould.  They stepped outside expectations and rightly deserve to be called the authors of our history. 

For any fan of the Wars of the Roses era, this book won’t just make an enjoyable addition to the reading list.  It will shed light on a crucial dynamic to the conflicts that we are unlikely to come across in other accounts of the period. 

Blood Sisters: The Women Behind the Wars of the Roses, is available from Amazon.

However, please consider supporting your local book seller.  If you are based in the UK, search for your local book seller at the Book Seller Associations website.

Edward IV faced rumours in his own time that he was not a legitimate Plantagenet.  More recently, historians have raised questions around the circumstances of his conception and birth.

In this video, I outline why I do not believe claims of Edward’s illegitimacy bear scrutiny.

I am indebted to a blog post by Trish Williams on the History Files.  This post did not fundamentally change my view and I was already aware of the most of the information in contains.  However, I had not previously appreciated that the Earls of Oxford and Ormonde/Wiltshire had been in France with the Yorks in 1441.  This information is significant and a game changer in discrediting the rumours that surfaced in 1469.

Even before the ‘White Princess’ TV series, Margaret Beaufort was remembered as the mother-in-law from Hell. But does she really deserve this reputation? Check out my thoughts on the reason why Margaret was so much at court in the early years of Henry VII’s reign. What do you think?

The Queen’s announcement that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will cease using the style His/Her Royal Highness has taken many by surprise.

Recently, the folks at CNN have published a piece stating that while the couple will not use the style, the Queen has not formally revoked it. 

This is true.  However, the rest of the piece shows how little the history and the use of the style is understood.  Because the article contains errors which seem to be widespread, I wanted to take a moment to correct the inaccuracies in the piece.

This blog post is not intended as a criticism of the journalist or the people who have been sharing the piece on social media.  Royal titles are complicated and opaque.  Rules have not been followed consistently throughout history.  They largely emerge from established custom and have not been logically or systematically developed.  I have been studying them for many years and thought it might be helpful to clear a few things up.

CNN claim: it’s entirely unprecedented for a monarch to ask her own grandchild to drop their title

This is probably technically true.  However, it is not unprecedented for royal grandchildren to stop using them.

When Princess Patricia of Connaught – granddaughter of Queen Victoria – married in 1919 she stated her wish to relinquish the style of Royal Highness and the title of Princess of Great Britain and Ireland.  Her cousin, George V, issued a Royal Warrant relieving her of the title and allowing her to be styled as Lady Patricia Ramsay with precedence before Marchionesses.

CNN claim: since the early 18th century it’s been customary for the title to be issued to sons and grandsons (and later, daughters and granddaughters) of the monarch.

It is certainly true that prior to the mid-1800s the use of the style was used inconsistently.  However, I cannot find any evidence that it was given to male descendants prior to their female counterparts.

It’s probably worth pausing here to quickly review the history of ‘Royal Highness.’  The best work on this is an academic study by Ann Lyon, but you have to pay to get it.  Hopefully, my more workman-like run through will suffice.

• From the late 1600s until 1714 the style of ‘Royal Highness’ was used sporadically but inconsistently for senior Royals.  There doesn’t seem to be any detectable pattern or method behind its use.
• With the Hanoverian succession of 1714, the Germanic practice of children and other male-line descendants of the King being called ‘Princes’ and ‘Princesses’ was cemented.  Generally, children of the King were styled as ‘Royal Highness’ although at times this was interchangeable with ‘Highness’.
• By the time Queen Victoria came to the throne, it was fully accepted that children of the sovereign were styled ‘Royal Highness’.  However, male-line grandchildren were styled ‘Royal Highness’ and ‘Highness’ interchangeably.
• As Queen Victoria’s family started to expand, people decided to actually sit down and think about the use of Royal style.  In 1864, the Queen issued letters patent clarifying that all children and male-line grandchildren of the sovereign were styled ‘Royal Highness’ with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixing their Christian name or other titles.  These letters patent heavily imply that all other male-line descendants of a sovereign are styled as ‘Highness.’
• When foreign Princes who were due to marry one of Queen Victoria’s daughters and reside in the UK, the Queen granted them the style of ‘Royal Highness’ if they did not already posses it.  It was also granted to her own husband, Prince Albert.
• As a result of the ambiguity around the style of latter generations, George V had to deal with a number of requests from male-line great and great-great grandsons of British princes – now living overseas – who wanted to be clear on what their British style was.  Individual letters patent were issued to clarify that they were Princes of Great Britain and Ireland with the style of ‘Highness’.
• Perhaps fed up with these requests, at around about the same time as he changed the name of the Royal House to Windsor, George V issued further letters patent to further clarify the Royal style.  The use of Royal Highness was extended slightly to cover the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and the style of ‘Highness’ was effectively discontinued.  This meant that male-line descendants of a sovereign would cease to use the title Prince / Princess after two generations.
• Ahead of the birth of Prince George, the Queen further extended the style of ‘Royal Highness’ and the title of Prince/Princess to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

CNN: HRH is bestowed upon royal members at the discretion of the monarch at the time, but was used liberally until World War I.

This is not true.  As we have seen from the above, Queen Victoria clarified the use of HRH in 1864 and it was clearly restricted to two generations.

CNN claim: in 1917, George V restricted how many minor royals were getting the title – at a time when there was public suspicion about the German origins of the House of Windsor, speedily renamed that year from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Not true.  As we have seen, George V slightly expanded the use of the HRH style.  He did, however, heavily curtain the use of the Prince / Princess title and all but eliminated the style of ‘Highness’.

CNN claim: Queen Elizabeth II has loosened those guidelines, giving HRH status to a number of senior royals.

Not really.  The only extension she has made was to ensure the style went to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.  Without these changes, only George would have been an HRH.  The younger two would currently be known as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.  However, they would have obtained HRH upon Charles’s succession.

CNN claim: They’ve agreed to be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Have they?  I’ve seen this a lot on social media, but I can’t find any evidence for it.

If one is the holder of a peerage than using first names with titles is highly irregular.  There are plenty of Dukes who are not Royal.  For example, the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire are known as just that.  Not Peregrine, Duke of Devonshire and Amanda, Duchess of Devonshire.

In reality, when involved in commercial work, I suspect that the couple will do what most peers do and use their title as a surname.  So, if the Duchess stars in a film, she will probably be credited as ‘Meghan Sussex.’  In the same way, the current Earl of Snowdon trades as ‘David Linley’, because prior to his father’s death his title was Viscount Linley.

The truth is, we’re not clear on how this is going to work yet.  I assume – although may be wrong – that when they do come to big Royal events, such as Charles’s coronation, they will still use HRH.

CNN claim: today, children and grandchildren of the monarch traditionally get the HRH title – though it was historically withheld from granddaughters

As explored above, I cannot find any evidence for this.  If anyone knows where this has come from, or if I have missed anything, please let me know.

CNN claim: Not everyone has accepted the offer of an HRH. Princess Anne, the Queen’s daughter, declined the title for her own children, Peter and Zara. That’s in contrast to Prince Andrew, who allowed his daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, to carry it.

This is commonly stated but is not true.  Anne’s children were never entitled to HRH.  As you’ll see from above the title goes to children and male-line grandchildren of a sovereign.  This follows the usual pattern that a child takes their style from their father unless their mother has a hereditary title.

The only way that it could be argued that Anne ‘chose’ for her children to be untitled is that it is almost certain that her first husband – Mark Philips – was offered an Earldom upon marriage.  Had he accepted it, then Peter would be known as Viscount Something (Earls typically have two titles and the eldest son is known by the lesser in his father’s lifetime) and his sister as Lady Zara Tindall.

CNN claim: Kate and Megan were both were awarded the HRH title by the Queen after they married Princes William and Harry, respectively. But those who marry royals who aren’t as high in the line of succession may miss out. Jack Brooksbank, for instance, did not get the title when he married Eugenie, even though she is an HRH.

This is a total misunderstanding.  Under British common law, a woman becomes the feminine of everything her husband is.  So whoever HRH Prince Michael of Kent marries becomes HRH Princess Michael of Kent. 

However, women cannot communicate precedence, title or styles to their husbands, hence why Eugenie’s husband is untitled.  It has nothing to do with their place in the succession.  Hope this helps clears a few things up!

In the past few posts we’ve seen that the childhood Margaret, though a wealthy heiress, was not deemed to be a candidate for the throne.  However, as Lancaster was gradually depleted there were those who began to ponder whether her blood line could lead to a dynasty of Kings.

In truth, when we see Margaret or her young son portrayed as the ‘heirs to Lancaster’ in historical fiction books and TV dramas, their status has been somewhat inflated in order to give currency to their characters.  Margaret Beaufort has even been described in one series as ‘the Red Queen’ – an attribute that should surely go to Margaret of Anjou if it’s going to go to anyone.

But I can’t forget that when trying to frame her sort-of father-in-law in 1450, Parliament accused him of having tried to marry his son to her because he believed her to be the heir to the throne.  While he almost certainly hadn’t believed anything of the sort, those accusing him could not have done so if there was not a hint of credibility to the claims.  But it probably was just a hint.  Everyone thought the Duke of York was the heir; but perhaps when people discussed what would happen after Henry VI’s demise, Margaret occasionally got a mention.

Everything of course changed in 1470 when Lancaster had no option but to look for anyone with Royal blood and glanced briefly at Henry Tudor.  Any claim he had came through Margaret – but no one thought she herself could be Queen.  However, Henry’s chances only really picked up when people started rebelling against the tyranny of Richard III.  At this stage, people primarily supported him because he pledged to marry Elizabeth of York – who did have a good claim.

As I said at the beginning, Margaret Beaufort is my Royal history heroine.  Through arranging the engagement of her son to Elizabeth, and risking much to take part in rebellions, she can claim credit for the rise of the Tudors.  But there’s no need to retrospectively raise her status to make her a compelling character to study.  She has interest and appeal in bucket loads.

Welcome to RoyalHistoryGeeks.com, the home of a new blog that will launch in January 2016.

For as long as I can remember, I have been obsessed with the stories of the Kings and Queens that have shaped the United Kingdom.  From the personal dramas that would seem far-fetched to a soap opera writer, to the dynamic political factions that competed for power, influence and dominance over the crowned heads of the Kingdom, the annuls of history have presented me with greater intellectual stimulation and enjoyment  than any fiction writer could have hoped to.

Having spent many a late night debating on Royal forums, furiously correcting Wikipedia entries and trawling the internet for any trace of the subjects that fascinate me, I know that I am not alone.

It is my dream that this blog helps facilitate these conversations and becomes a centre for intelligent and well-written content on the Royal houses that have reigned over us and those that were intimately connected to them.

A blog, by its nature must be regularly updated and fast moving.  This means that content won’t always be thoroughly researched, although sometimes a greater level of investigation will proceed posting.

Let me be clear on one thing.  Blogging can never replace deeply researched scholarship; this blog will not even pretend to do so.  Instead it will help people dip their toe in the water, give each of us a chance to contribute our thinking and frankly, help us enjoy sharing our super-cool but often misunderstood obsessions with those of a like mind.

If you would like to be kept up to date with the progress of this blog, or even fancy the chance of submitting a post, please sign up to the mailing list.

Thanks for considering joining me on this adventure.  We have a Royal history that’s worth being geeky about.