Eleventh Century – MJ Porter

The role of the historical fiction writer #histfic #non-fiction

Up-to-date interpretations in nonfiction titles

Now, I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think historical fiction writers have a duty to portray history as accurately as possible and I think this should be the most up to date interpretations of the past, and not what people were taught in the classroom at school, often quite some time ago, or what’s to be found in popular ‘history’ books often written by presenters from the TV who simply regurgitate the same old supposed facts.

History, contrary to popular opinion, is not an old, dead, subject. In fact it can be very current (I’m just reading about a new copy of the Magna Carta that’s been found abandoned in an old scrapbook) and it changes as more and more information is unearthed or rethought.

Now, this problem doesn’t only affect historical fiction authors, but often those who are eminent scholars in other fields who want to cross-reference with history. Archaeology is only the most obvious of these. Archaeologists aren’t historians, and vice-versa, and as close as the two subjects are, their cross over points can be poles apart. Archaeologists and historians both use each others research to ‘prove’ their arguments but they often rely on outdated interpretations and aren’t always aware of the most up to date research. This can cause huge problems, and I think that all scholars have a duty to seek out experts who can provide the correct current thinking, even if they ultimately question it and offer an alternative.

And in fiction

So what of historical fiction writers? Too often I see old stereotypes being portrayed and no efforts being made to write something that’s factually accurate but different to the accepted norm and this means that time and time again, outdated ideas and even completely incorrect stories are being written about historical figures and being accepted by a huge majority of people because it says it in a book.

Not only does it stifle historical research because it means that readers don’t question the story, but it also means that incorrect historical ideas are constantly being reinforced. As a historian, I’ve been taught never to really accept what’s written, to look for the bias, look for who gains from a certain take on events, and to look at why things are written just as much as what’s actually written. I take this as normal behaviour, but I’m starting to think I might be wrong and that worries me. What if people really think that Elizabeth I did have an affair with Dudley? What if people really do think that Henry VIII was just a dirty old man who went through six wives in seemingly rapid succession (forgetting all together that he was ‘happily’ married for nearly 20 years before all that kicked off)?

If you’re a historical fiction writer, think about why you use the information that you do, and more importantly, if you’re a reader, please think about how the characters are used and why and if you can, dig a little deeper, look for the ‘truth’ because it’s more than likely very, very different from what’s being portrayed. Even seemingly small touches can damn an entire book or TV show. Find the reason, and then, hopefully, the ‘facts’ might make themselves a little clearer.

(Please note this is a historic blog post from 2015, but I’ve left it on the blog during a recent refresh as it is quite interesting to see (at least for me) how my ideas about these concerns have developed over time).

Saxon Royal Charters from 1006-1013 #TheEarlsofMercia #histfic #non-fiction

Royal charters from 1006-1013

There are only 8 surviving charters for this period in history. They are from 1007, 1009, 1012 and 1013. It’s said that the missing years are due to interruptions caused by invasions of ‘Viking raiders’. This certainly applies to 1010-11 and 1006 when the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recounts tales of Viking incursions.

As is so often the case, this lack is frustrating because something monumental seems to happen at the King Æthelred’s court between 1009-1012. For a start, the number of ealdormen begins to increase, and second, the, until then, rigidly enforced precedence of the ealdormen crumbles away, and one ealdorman, Eadric of Mercia, comes out on top and Ælfric of Hampshire (who I imagine as a little doddery by now – but I may be doing him a disservice) seems to fall down the rankings, as does Leofwine of Mercia.

By this stage, it’s assumed that both Eadric and Uhtred of Northumbria (the other ealdorman who rises in precedence during this period) are related to Æthelred as they’ve both married one of his daughters.

But there seems an inherent contradiction in this because whilst the ling may be seen to be rewarding his ealdormen with marriage into his family, his own sons from his first marriage don’t seem to be getting any additional authority. This is slightly speculation on my part, but it seems clear to me that Æthelred preferred his sons-in-law to his own sons. Obviously, he now had two sons by his new wife, Emma of Normandy, and although they were only very young, he may have been trying to ensure their inheritance of the throne over and above their older half-brothers.

I appreciate that this is all speculation from only a handful of charters, but it provides a fascinating insight into the character of Æthelred if he really was so unprepared to give his sons any formal authority. Surely, in his times of trouble, when the Viking raiders attacked relentlessly and he was growing steadily older, it would have been an acceptable use of his older sons to use them as battle commanders?

Certainly, later in the 1010s the sons seem to come into their own, and must have had command and fighting experience somewhere. The king proved to be very resistant to leading his own men into battle (apart from the Battle of Chester in 1000) so I wonder why he wouldn’t chose his elder sons who he hoped would never inherit?

But that’s just my ponderings and something I’m going to explore in The Earls of Mercia Book 3.

Check out The Earls of Mercia series page for more information.

(Please note this is a historic blog post from 2014. I’ve left it in place because it’s kind of interesting to see what I was thinking back then.)