Terra: I understand the reasoning of keeping Athelred on the throne as King of England when his mother was alive, but how could he have possibly kept his position for so many years after her death with being so incompetent? Even with Emma at his side I should think he would have been killed some how.
HH: Ah, but you are not taking into account Anglo Saxon ethics. A man swore his honour and loyalty to his Lord – a Housecarl to his Earl, and the Earl to his King. To murder the King you have sworn your loyalty to would be to cause yourself dishonor – and no man of dishonour would be followed loyally by other men. (think of it as very like the Chivalric code of later years). Of course there were men who wouldn’t give a mouldy turnip for honour!
Move forward to the reign of Charles I – there were a lot of men who were very uneasy about executing him.
Why are modern Presidents or UK Prime Ministers simply not “bumped off” if they are not doing a decent job? Because, on the whole, it is not morally acceptable.
Terra: I know our frame of mind today won’t even let us consider having a child married off and having relations with a man twice her age or more, what was the main purpose of this type of behavior so many years ago? How could a mother possibly prepare her daughter for adult behavior and relations without feeling guilt?
HH: You cannot compare modern times with the past (some cultures today still marry their daughters at puberty). Juliet, of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet for example, was only 14.
Primarily this is because in the past people did not live as long, and childbirth was one of the main causes of death. The older the woman, the more likely a difficult childbirth.
In fact, a mother would be less likely to feel guilty about marrying a younger daughter than an older one for this reason. It is only in fairly recent times that we have started considering a girl is not old enough for “relationships” until she is over fifteen or sixteen.
Emma in my story is thirteen – we do not know her actual age, she could have been nearer sixteen, although I think the younger age more likely, hence I have used it. Marriages between noble family were extremely important for they brought alliances – and hopefully, the less likelihood of war or feuding. The idea didn’t always work of course!
Terra: War has been an ugly word and action all through the ages. How would you compare Athelred and Cnut’s fighting prowess and leadership abilities to each other?
HH: I’m not sure I agree with you. In the past war has been looked on as a matter of honour, courage and bravery. I personally think that the attitude and manner of war changed with the use of gunpowder. War “man to man” is one thing, cannon and bombs that cause mass death quite another.
Æthelred had no stomach for a fight—Cnut was ambitious.
Æthelred already had a throne and a kingdom—Cnut did not.
Æthelred had poor advisors—Cnut had good generals.
In short, Æthelred did not stand a chance! :-)
Terra: Queen Emma started her reign as a child, had her first born son as a child but had an intelligence well beyond her years and a loyalty that one could only associate with an adult. Was this common for females of all stations of life per that time period or was it exclusively just the “upper crust,” so to speak?
HH: No. The majority of people could not read or write, for one thing. (Duke William of Normandy could not.) And again you are looking at Emma’s age in modern terms. Once a girl reached puberty (thirteen-fifteen) she was a grown woman, not a child. Many grown women were dead by thirty or forty!
Most ordinary people did not travel, communication was limited, perhaps the furthest someone would go in times of peace was the nearest market, especially the women. Emma, like
Eleanor of Aquitaine in later years, was a remarkable woman.
Terra: England must have been such a young country when compared to Normandy and France to have their main fortresses as wood while the rest of Europe was already making theirs of stone and mortar. Was Queen Emma’s reign the first to incorporate more solid sturdy structures to England?
HH: On the contrary – you have that the wrong way round! England was a very firm-based very old country. “England” as “Britain” had an established culture even prior to the Roman Empire. The British Celts had very strong fortifications (Iron Age earthworks that can still be seen today) The Romans from the first century built stone fortresses here, then when the Empire fell (circa 420 A.D.) , the Saxons, Angles and Jutes (The English) began to settle. Probably peacefully, on the whole.
Normandy, by contrast was only established as a duchy by Rollo circa 911 – one thousand years later! Rollo was a “Northman” – a Viking. From Northman we get ‘Northman Land’ = Normandy.
France too, was established as a “Kingdom” much later than Britain/England – when the Franks moved in to the vacuum and chaos left behind by the collapse of the Roman Empire. “France” was established circa 500.
The idea that stone built castles are a sign of a civilized culture is Norman propaganda! :-) The Normans built stone castles here in England to defend themselves – to keep themselves safe…. From the English. Prior to the Conquest our major towns and cities had solid stone fortifications around them (some, dating from the Roman period can still be seen at places like York and London) The point is, although there were wars and skirmishes during the “Viking” invasions of the 9th Century and disruption along the coasts and borders (King Alfred the Great died 899) on the whole the English did not need stone fortresses because they had no one to protect themselves against! England was a fairly peaceful place for centuries.
King Alfred’s daughter, Æthelflæd, the Lady of Mercia (died 918) did build a line of fortresses across the mid lands of England, and yes, she built in wood – but oak is pretty solid and weaponry was not used to lay siege at that point – siege engines, mangonels etc were used during Roman times, but had fallen out of use. Siege warfare only started to re-establish itself from the mid 900’s onward. Towns and Church property needed defending, but individual stone castles were not required.
I would argue, that maybe if the Normans had been beaten the whole perspective of warfare may have remained different for quite a few centuries.
Stone fortifications, then are a bad uncivilised thing!
Or even if you disagree with that theory of mine, there is absolutely no reason why the Saxons would not have started to build in stone had such fortifications been required.
Cathedrals and abbeys were starting to be built in stone in England at more or less the same time as in Normandy. While Duke William of Normandy and his wife Matilda were building their Cathedrals at Caen, King Edward of England and Earl Harold Godwineson were building Westminster and Waltham Abbey. And while I’m at it – Duke William was not the first king to be crowned in Westminster Abbey. Harold Godwineson – Harold II was. He was crowned as our legitimate, holy anointed King on January 6th 1066. But that is another story – I Am The Chosen King (Harold the King UK title) to be published by Sourcebooks in the US in March 2011 in fact!
Terra: With all the male children involved here, who would have had the absolute right of succession after Cnut? Emma having had two sons from Athelred, sons also by Cnut, it seems a bit confusing about who would have the right of first succession. Was it a matter of the current King’s heirs having first rights or would it have been by the eldest known son of an anointed King?
HH: No. The most able and capable man was elected as King by the Witan – the Council. Usually this was the æthling (a term which means Kingworthy – I suppose we would interpret it is a Prince nowadays). The æthling would be any son, nephew, or grandson of the present King. Thus, both Harold Harefoot (Cnut’s illegitimate son) and Harthacnut (his son by Emma) both had a right to the throne. It was a case of the best man to do the job got the job. Usually, of course, this was the eldest son.
Æthelred’s eldest son became King as he was the strongest, better trained and most capable.
Harold Godwineson became King in 1066 because the only æthling was still too young to rule effectively. Duke William had no right to the English throne as the Council did not elect him. He was a conquering dictator.
Prima Geniture is a Norman idea. One that many could argue should never have been started in the first place (in 1087 upon William’s death).
Terra: Emma’s heritage having been Norman would make you assume her loyalties would have been to her birth country. Was it common for a Queen to so completely adopt, nurture and protect--even if it cost her death—a people who were not of her blood?
HH: Yes. Most women became part of their marriage family (as another good example of this read Elizabeth Chadwick’s To Defy A King, which will also be released by Sourcebooks in March 2011 in the US. Mahelt Marshal very firmly becomes Lady Bigod.)
I suppose, for a Queen it is all about power. Emma would have been nothing in Normady, just someone’s wife. In England, she was Queen who cherished her crown above everything.
Terra: How important was it for a woman of this time period to manipulate the men around her to help govern with fairness and intelligence when women were considered no more than breed mares?
HH: Queens like Emma and Eleanor of Aquitaine were rare – look at the war caused because Henry I only had Matilda (Maud) as a surviving daughter. And even Emma and Eleanor did not rule. The first Queen to rule in her own right was Elizabeth I.
Terra: Have you any thoughts on what you might do as your next project?
HH: I am finishing the fourth of my pirate-nautical adventures – Ripples In The Sand – and then I intend to write a follow-up novel to I Am The Chosen King / Harold the King. The aftermath of the 1066 Conquest. That will probably be ready in late 2012
Thank you so much Helen for being with us today and best wishes for a safe and wonderful Holiday Season. I look forward to reading more of your work soon.
Huggs,
Terra
Thank you for having me!
Helen
The Forever Queen Schedule
1-Nov
http://www.bibliophilicbookblog.com/
http://calicocritic.blogspot.com/
2-Nov
http://www.passagestothepast.com/
http://lifeinthethumb.blogspot.com/
3-Nov
http://www.luxuryreading.com/
4-Nov
http://yankeeromancereviewers.blogspot.com/
http://historicallyobsessed.blogspot.com/
5-Nov
http://booksbythewillowtree.blogspot.com/
http://www.historyandwomen.com/
8-Nov
http://www.rundpinne.blogspot.com/
http://www.bookwormsdinner.blogspot.com/
9-Nov
http://debsbookbag.blogspot.com/
http://startingfresh-gaby317.blogspot.com/
10-Nov
http://literatehousewife.com/
http://carpelibrisreviews.com/
11-Nov
http://web.me.com/quirion/Bookaddict/Welcome.html
http://bibliophile23.wordpress.com/
12-Nov
http://www.brokenteepee.blogspot.com/
http://www.read-all-over.net
15-Nov
http://writesthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://celticladysramblings.blogspot.com/
16-Nov
http://www.jennylovestoread.blogspot.com/
http://booksandneedlepoint.blogspot.com/
17-Nov
http://bookalicio.us/
http://themaidenscourt.blogspot.com/
18-Nov
http://pushersink.blogspot.com/
http://marthasbookshelf.blogspot.com/
19-Nov
http://theroyalreviews.blogspot.com/
http://thetometraveller.blogspot.com/
For all of you readers who really love Historical Fiction, take a few moments each day and check out the above blogs to see their owners take on The Forever Queen. It's always great to find what others think of such a wonderful work of art and you might even find a few giveaways in there also.
This book was a pleasure to read and an honor to interview it's author. I found with my interview that I think too modern and really need to find myself a frame of mind that is conducive to ages past and settings in which they represent.
Contest Time:
I have two copies of The Forever Queen by Helen Hollick that need to find loving readers. Please leave Helen a thoughtout question about The Forever Queen along with your email addy to have a chance to receive one of the two copies I have available. (Many thanks to Sourcebooks for making this Interview and Giveaway possible). Open to US and Canada residents only.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)