Help!

[Miss Moppet]

If there are any experts in rights of royal inheritence out there, I wonder if you can help me.

Matthew Paris wrote the following in his chronicle for the year 1238: "....The eldest son of Simon de Montfort, by Eleanor his wife (sister to King Henry 111), was born at Kenilworth, to add to the strength and comfort of the kingdom; for it was feared that the queen might be barren ....."

Henry had been married for almost 3 years and there was no sign of a child, giving rise to fears that there would be no heir to the throne should that situation continue. Now Henry's brother Richard of Cornwall had a son, Henry of Almain, so why would a child of his sister Eleanor "give comfort to the kingdom", when a potential heir to the throne was already alive. Surely the son of the king's brother had precedence?

Can anyone help?

Yes he would take precedence, but it says add to the strength and comfort of the kingdom. I think it just means everyone was pleased to have another heir. In a time of high mortality, the more heirs the better.

[Ken]

Yes he would take precedence, but it says add to the strength and comfort of the kingdom. I think it just means everyone was pleased to have another heir. In a time of high mortality, the more heirs the better.

Makes sense Miss Moppet, thanks! On another subject, I'm a bit concerned about Lady Moppet. Any idea what's happened to her lately??

[Miss Moppet]

Makes sense Miss Moppet, thanks! On another subject, I'm a bit concerned about Lady Moppet. Any idea what's happened to her lately??

Oh she's all right. She gets tired easily, being heavily pregnant with twins, but will gather her strength shortly to issue another instalment of her story.

[Ken]

Oh she's all right. She gets tired easily, being heavily pregnant with twins, but will gather her strength shortly to issue another instalment of her story.

Bad, bad King John! Has he no pity? It was King John, wasn't it??

[Ken]

It's here (be sure to start with "Newest First" or you'll be there forever). Look for the posts by "Chretien" on 8/9 and 8/4 (one in the third person and one in the first person where the poster identifies herself as Ashe).

l[/URL]

Ouch! Just read it. Think I'm beginning to change my mind about her!

[Miss Moppet]

Bad, bad King John! Has he no pity? It was King John, wasn't it??

Oh yes, but he doesn't know yet and the news will come as rather a shock...

[EC2]

I can't help Ken except to wonder if the 'add to' statement means that the royals of whatever gender were producing children to increase the safety net and thus it was a good thing. I'm not hot on inheritance laws by the mid 13thC.
There is a very odd statement during the reign of King John though. When there was that plot against him in 1212, one of the rumours was that he was going to be deposed and Simon de Montfort (the father of the novel Simon) offered the throne. Quite why, has never been explained, but I wonder if the Simon and Eleanor's heir bit is more of that strand.
As to medieval men crying - they do it quite a bit in The Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal, including the Marshal himself and there seems to have been double standards at work. It was both manly and unmanly to cry. Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no!
As to reviewing - some excellent advice from everyone. I'm not a major reviewer - I tend to give quick sketch impressions, but some excellent advice for those who go in for it on a stronger basis. Good luck!

[Margaret]

Also, don't be afraid to point out shortcomings in the book just because the author is an expert in this period and you're not. You're responding as a reader, and chances are you know just as much (or more) about this time period than most of the other readers. If the author failed to make her narrative convincing and real for you, then you're probably not the only one who felt that way.

Good advice from Michy. It's worthwhile to imply the level of your expertise by the tone of your review. When I'm unfamiliar with a particular period, event or historical person, and something challenges my credibility, I will usually take a quick look at Wikipedia to see if the author might actually be correct. While I would not rely on Wikipedia when researching a novel, it can be a great help to a reviewer.

There's two types of credibility challenge: inaccurate details (it's really, really hard for a novelist to make every single detail accurate, and even harder for a reviewer who is not an expert in the period to pick up whether the details are accurate or not, so I don't usually mention these unless something rings serious alarm bells for me and a check confirms that the author's research was sloppy) and characters with 21st century attitudes living in the distant past, which is usually pretty easy for a reader with a general knowledge of history to pick up on even without being an expert in the period. Some readers are happy to go along with 21st century characters in fancy dress (and won't be put off the novel by your review), but others will be grateful to you for pointing out this sort of flaw.

[boswellbaxter]

Good advice from Michy. It's worthwhile to imply the level of your expertise by the tone of your review. When I'm unfamiliar with a particular period, event or historical person, and something challenges my credibility, I will usually take a quick look at Wikipedia to see if the author might actually be correct. While I would not rely on Wikipedia when researching a novel, it can be a great help to a reviewer.

There's two types of credibility challenge: inaccurate details (it's really, really hard for a novelist to make every single detail accurate, and even harder for a reviewer who is not an expert in the period to pick up whether the details are accurate or not, so I don't usually mention these unless something rings serious alarm bells for me and a check confirms that the author's research was sloppy) and characters with 21st century attitudes living in the distant past, which is usually pretty easy for a reader with a general knowledge of history to pick up on even without being an expert in the period. Some readers are happy to go along with 21st century characters in fancy dress (and won't be put off the novel by your review), but others will be grateful to you for pointing out this sort of flaw.

I would never use Wikipedia as a basis for saying that an author is wrong; the quality of the articles there is just too uneven. Too often Wikipedia reflects popular myths or outdated research, so an author whose information differs from that given on Wikipedia may actually be in the right. For instance, until I changed it, the Wikipedia entry on my heroine Katherine Woodville stated that she was a dozen years older than her husband, whereas primary sources indicate that she was actually 2 to 3 years younger.

[Celia Hayes]

I dunno -my thing to keep in mind when reviewing a book is 'what reasons are there for a reader to like it' (qualifying if they are general or expert) and 'what is there about it that could be improved."
Oddly enough the books that I really enjoyed are easy to write the review for. The ones that left me lukewarm or cold ... eh. It's like pulling a long, long root out of a drain.
And the ones that you really dislike, it's fairly easy and viciously fun to let fly. Fortunately for authors that I review, I have managed to avid reading the books which suck like a sump-pump. (Look Inside feature -at Amazon... it's a godsend. Read at random, you can tell of it is worth the time to do a review.)