Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A little medieval help please

User avatar
Elizabeth
Avid Reader
Contact:

Postby Elizabeth » Wed July 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm

"Miss Moppet" wrote:But I can't see anyone referring to John as the King-Duke. He was also Count of Anjou and Duke of Aquitaine, so why not refer to him as the King-Duke-Count-Duke?


LOL on "King-Duke-Count-Duke."

The only parallel I can come up with is from the 16th century, so hundreds of years later and who knows how customs may have changed? But Mary Stuart was called the "Reine-Dauphine" after she married poor little Francois. Somehow it sounds better in French.
THE RED LILY CROWN: A Novel of Medici Florence.
THE FLOWER READER.
THE SECOND DUCHESS.

www.elizabethloupas.com

User avatar
Jemidar
Avid Reader
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Postby Jemidar » Fri July 9th, 2010, 1:41 am

"Michy" wrote:I thought of that angle, but wasn't sure because Eleanor is/was always referred to as Duchess of Aquitaine, not Duke..... ?


Because Eleanor was an heiress and whoever married her got to be the Duke, which technically outranked her. She was expected to marry and didn't hold the Duchy in her own right. When Henry married her he became the Duke and ruler. That's why she was such a great marriage prize.

Anne B. was a pretty extraordinary case for the time, but it showed what Henry was prepared to do for her. He was also safeguarding any children they might've had out of wedlock.

Queen Elizabeth II is also the Duke of Lancaster .
Jenny
[SIZE=2]
"Well-behaved women rarely make history."
[/SIZE]
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
[SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Currently Reading:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]

User avatar
Margaret
Bibliomaniac
Interest in HF: I can't answer this in 100 characters. Sorry.
Favorite HF book: Checkmate, the final novel in the Lymond series
Preferred HF: Literary novels. Late medieval and Renaissance.
Location: Catskill, New York, USA
Contact:

Postby Margaret » Fri July 9th, 2010, 6:11 am

Queen Elizabeth II is also the Duke of Lancaster


Now, there's something I didn't know!
Browse over 5000 historical novel listings (probably well over 5000 by now, but I haven't re-counted lately) and over 700 reviews at www.HistoricalNovels.info

User avatar
robinbird79
Avid Reader
Location: Georgia

Postby robinbird79 » Tue July 13th, 2010, 6:59 pm

"Margaret" wrote:Now, there's something I didn't know!


Me either! I didn't even know that title still existed.
Currently Reading: Crown in Candlelight, R. H. Jarmen

http://almostcrazymommy.blogspot.com

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby Misfit » Sat January 29th, 2011, 3:29 pm

OK, bumping the thread for another round of questions. I know astrology's been around for a year or two, but would it have been openly practiced, discussed and fortunes told in the court of Richard II without fear of censure from the church?
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

User avatar
MLE (Emily Cotton)
Bibliomaniac
Interest in HF: started in childhood with the classics, which, IMHO are HF even if they were contemporary when written.
Favorite HF book: Prince of Foxes, by Samuel Shellabarger
Preferred HF: Currently prefer 1600 and earlier, but I'll read anything that keeps me turning the page.
Location: California Bay Area

Postby MLE (Emily Cotton) » Sat January 29th, 2011, 4:37 pm

"Misfit" wrote:OK, bumping the thread for another round of questions. I know astrology's been around for a year or two, but would it have been openly practiced, discussed and fortunes told in the court of Richard II without fear of censure from the church?

Yes, it would have. As anybody studying Medieval Christianity can see, the parts of scripture that were 'in' were overpracticed, and the parts that were 'out' simply ignored. Astrology was 'in'. Witchcraft was 'out'.

Astrology was considered a science -- hence the 'ology' -- 'study of' after the astro part. When Galileo's telescope actually began the infant science of studying the stars, they had to call it 'star-naming', or astronomy, because 'star-study' was already taken and had a distinctly non-scientific meaning.

Every royal court had its official astrologer, and most of the great households did too. That's true all across Europe, in the Muslim-controlled nations, and China.

User avatar
boswellbaxter
Bibliomaniac
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Postby boswellbaxter » Sat January 29th, 2011, 4:44 pm

"Misfit" wrote:OK, bumping the thread for another round of questions. I know astrology's been around for a year or two, but would it have been openly practiced, discussed and fortunes told in the court of Richard II without fear of censure from the church?


Yes. Richard II's biographer Nigel Saul notes that he "appears to have paid a considerable amount of attention to astrological predictions," and that his mother commissioned a set of astrological tables. Saul goes on to note that there was evidently "a ready market for [astrological] literature among the well-to-do clergy and the aristocracy."
Susan Higginbotham
Coming in October: The Woodvilles


http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby Misfit » Sat January 29th, 2011, 7:16 pm

Thanks ladies, that helps a lot. Now if I could find a reason for our hero to tell the King he's not going to wed the lady he's told too unless she can prove she loves him... ;)
At home with a good book and the cat...

...is the only place I want to be

User avatar
Alisha Marie Klapheke
Avid Reader
Location: Franklin, TN
Contact:

Postby Alisha Marie Klapheke » Sun January 30th, 2011, 4:49 am

LOL on the pink dead bunnies and Duke/King/Master of the Universe comments.

Aside from that, this all makes me nervous about my first attempt at HF. I knew the answers to the less detailed of the questions originally posted on this thread, I've completed years of research using original and qualified secondary sources, and I feel like I'm comfortable in the time period of my novel (mid 13thc), but I'm afraid. I don't want a bunch of fantastic folks like you guys poking fun at my work on websites! Ack!

Is this why writers who do not have medieval history degrees get professional readers? Is that something I could do without having to spend money I do not have (I am a poor teacher)? How difficult is it to find someone who knows about my time period and who is willing to read my MS and point out any problems with the history side of things?

User avatar
SarahWoodbury
Avid Reader
Location: Pendleton, Oregon
Contact:

Postby SarahWoodbury » Sun January 30th, 2011, 5:46 am

Honestly, I would just do your best and accept what comes. New research comes out all the time and that's what the 'fiction' in historical fiction is all about. Yes, there are things that drive people crazy, but what bothers one won't bother another. If you serve potatoes in England in the 13th century, that would be a problem, but just do your best and don't worry about it.

That said, do you have a writing partner? Someone who shares your love of history? I don't think you need an 'expert'--just someone who might flag certain issues that you might not know are issues and send you in the direction of getting better answers. We are all constantly learning new things. Sometimes you learn something in time to put in the book and sometimes you don't . . .


Return to “Questions and Research”