Scandalous History

With a title like Royal Affairs: A Lusty Romp Through The Extramarital Adventures That Rocked the British Monarchy, how can you not want to pick up the book and read it? I grabbed it off the shelf, took it home, and read it. I'm not quite sure that the book lived up to its title, but it was an enjoyable read overall.

The author of Royal Affairs is Leslie Carroll. She writes women's fiction (whatever that is), historical fiction (under a pen name), and now historical non-fiction. While I may not entirely agree with her points in Royal Affairs, Carroll seems like a likeable person overall. I checked out her blog (www.royalaffairs.blogspot.com) and it was quite interesting. You can tell that she is passionately interested in history, and there were some good links to some other websites of historical interest. I especially enjoyed her discussion of The Tudors, the new BBC show of the chequered marital career of the infamous Henry VIII. When people find out I'm a history buff, they always ask if I'm watching The Tudors and then are surprised when I say no. I'm not watching it because I'm a history buff and the show gets so many things wrong! Carroll shares my concerns about the actor who portrays Henry VIII (too small and dark - Henry was tall, muscular, fair to red-headed, and handsome [until he got old and fat]) and the liberties taken with Henry's sisters (combined into one person, married to the King of Portugal, and supposedly murdered said King. Really? The true historical version of the stories of Margaret and Mary Tudor is much more interesting than that fictionalized balderdash. Read Sisters to the King by Maria Perry for the true story.) (Also, if the show ever moves on from the Tudors to the Stuarts, they're gonna have some 'splaining to do!) [For those who need 'splaining now, let me know and I'll briefly (promise!) explain in the comments how the Tudors turned into the Stuarts.] At any rate, while I didn't entirely enjoy her book, I do like Leslie Carroll as an author and may check out some more of her non-fiction and fiction works.

On to the book. The book is, obviously, about scandalous royal affairs. However, Carroll takes a broad definition of the word "affair": whereas I would define an affair as a consensual sexual relationship between two people, at least one of whom is married; Carroll takes a broader view and looks at general relationships between royals and a special subject. Using my definition, a few of the "affairs" she talks about would not be in the book at all: Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, Charles II and Frances Stuart, and Victoria and John Brown.

Where I have my problems with the book is the various couples that Carroll chooses to talk about or not talk about. For example: Henry VIII and Jane Seymour did not have an affair! They did not sleep together prior to marriage - in fact, Jane Seymour very clearly held Henry at arm's length and protected her virtue by returning his gifts while he was still married to Anne Boleyn. That does not mean that Jane did not strive and plan to be Queen, but she was not Henry's mistress before he married her. Sure, Anne's downfall and Jane's triumph make a good story, but they are hardly royal "affairs". This story would have fit better in a book about royal marriages - which I understand she's working on.

Also, Charles II and Frances Stuart. Charles II slept with a lot of women. That is historically documented. One of these women was NOT Frances Stuart. He wanted to sleep with her, but she refused him. The infatuated Charles used her portrait as the representation of Britannia on a victory medal struck to commemorate military success. This same portrait was later used on British coinage as the representation of Britannia. The author's point is that Frances made a scandal by refusing to sleep with Charles II when it was open season for lust and lechery at his court, but then it's not really a royal affair - it's more a story about something that didn't happen.

I would rather have had Carroll use the space in her book to tell stories about affairs that did happen. Of course, she cannot put every affair in, which is probably why Henry I (1100-1135: one of the Norman kings) and his 25 illegitimate children did not make it in. (More mistresses and children than even the profligate Charles II!) However, she missed one of the most important royal affairs in British Royal History: that of the widow of Henry V, the French Princess Catherine and her servant Owen Tudor. No, that name is not a coincidence: Katherine and Owen are the grandparents of Henry VII, founder of the Tudor dynasty. Catherine was the young and beautiful widow of the war-mongering Henry V. Henry and Catherine had one child, Henry VI, who became King before he was even one year old. Catherine was not part of the regency council which actually governed the realm, but as the Dowager Queen, she remained in England and was still vaguely important. Catherine fell in love with her Welsh keeper of the wardrobe, Owen Tudor. Catherine and Owen had at least 5 children before her death in childbirth in 1437. Catherine and Owen were probably not even married: there is no evidence of a marriage and we're not even sure exactly how many children they had. What is sure is that two boys, Jasper and Edmund, survived to adulthood. Edmund survived long enough to impregnate his 13 year old wife Margaret Beaufort with the child that would become Henry VII. Jasper had no legitimate issue, but guarded the rights of his nephew fiercely. Henry VII succeeded to the throne by right of conquest (and English royal blood through the Beaufort line), defeating Richard III at the battle of Bosworth in 1485.

Now, if that affair's not scandalous, I don't know what is! Certainly more scandalous (and of more dynastic importance) than Victoria and John Brown, or Fredrick Duke of York (one of the Hanovers) and Mary Anne Clarke. And if one quibbles that Catherine is not really "British" as she was part of the family by marriage and not blood, well, then the tales of Caroline of Brunswick, Princess of Wales (wife of George IV and mother of Princess Charlotte) would also have to be excised. Sure, Caroline was a cousin of George, but she was not considered part of the English Royal Family until she married in to it.

In general, the research was good. She has quite a large bibliography of books, articles, and websites in the back of the book. As per usual, I have my quibbles: when she's talking about Mary Boleyn, she mentions the possibility that Mary's son Henry (nominally by Mary's husband William Carey) was actually the son of Henry VIII as we are unsure when Henry VIII and Mary's affair actually ended. Henry Carey was born in 1526, about the time that Henry VIII started his relationship with Anne Boleyn. However, the author does not mention at all the possibility that Henry VIII may be the father of Mary Boleyn's other child, Catherine Carey. In fact, it is much more likely that Henry VIII is father of Catherine instead of Henry because Catherine was born in 1524! (And, incidentally, was the mother of Lettice Knollys who married Elizabeth I's favourite Robert Earl of Leicester and was mother of Elizabeth's other favourite Robert Earl of Essex.) But there is no mention of this in the book at all.

Further, in her last entry about Prince Charles, the current Prince of Wales, she mentions that Charles will be the first English-born King to be divorced when he succeeds to the throne. According to my research, this is only partly true. (Strictly speaking, Henry VIII was single when he came to the throne and sought annulments, not divorces.) The wiggle-words are "English-born": George I was divorced from his wife Sophia Dorothea (she had an affair - very scandalous!) when he became king in 1714, but, of course, he was born in Hanover.

However, I have found information which may indicate that King John was divorced when he became King in 1199. My favourite book, Britain's Royal Families by Alison Weir, indicates that King John was divorced from his first wife Isabella (or Hawise or Joan or Eleanor) probably before he became King, or at the very least shortly after he became King. (The exact date is not recorded.) John went on to marry the young and attractive Isabelle of Angouleme - their story is a good read as well. Weir is exceedingly thorough in her research and very careful with her terms and will indicate particularly if a marriage ended by divorce or by annulment - two very different things. John was born at Beaumont Palace, Oxford, England. So, I am inclined to think that perhaps King John was the first English-born divorced King - or very nearly, depending on exact dates.

I think the real problem with this book is that it's too basic for me. I've moved beyond this sort of "popular history" and tend to prefer more academic works. Otherwise, I just nitpick at all the things that aren't exactly true or that are open to interpretation. I know too much know to really be satisfied with this type of book. It's still an interesting book, and good for readers casually interested in history or romance, but a serious history reader will probably find it too light.