Annie Garthwaite: Cecily and The King's Mother
Two novels, a duology though they can be read independently, I suppose, about Cecily Neville, mother to Edward IV, Richard III and Margaret of Burgundy. Cecily shows up in Wars of the Roses fiction usually as a supporting character - she's the very sympathetic and admirable matriarch in Sharon Penman's Sunne in Splendour and the priggish harridan of a mother-in-law in Philippa Gregory's White Queen, and in Shakespeare her most memorable scene is cursing her own son and telling him she hated him from babydom onwards. But I don't think I've seen historical fiction choosing her as a central character that satisfied me, until these two novels. Without spoilers: they're entertaining and well written. It's not that I'm on board with every single narrative choice, but the author sells me on most, and I really appreciate that both novels use considerable page time showing Cecily relating to the other women in the Wars of the Roses - in the first novel mainly Jacquetta of Luxembourg (later Woodwville) and Marguerte d'Anjou, in the second Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville. Not all these relationships are positve, does does Cecily always do the right thing, but they're complex, and I'll say more about all of them in the spoilery section. Cecily's relationship with her husband, Richard, Duke of York, is a believable version of the "arranged marriage becomes true love and partnership" trope, and her relationship with each of her surviving children - not solely the three sons, but also her daughters - is individualized and unique. Despite having read my share of non fiction and fiction of this era, I don't think anyone else used the fact Cecily's mother had been a Beaufort as well (the youngest daughter of John of Gaunt and Katqherine Swynford) and that thus Cecily was related to various key players on the Lancastrian side this well.
Now, on to the spoiler section.
The first novel opens with the burning of Jeanne d'Arc, St. Joan, at Rouen. Which is such a clever choice. Young Cecily and her husband were in France at the time, it immediately establishes the 100-Years-War context, and it introduces Cecily's character - who doesn't look away though it's a hard thing to watch, who quietly prays with Joan but considers her execution the correct thing to happen - in the moral ambiguity the author goes for, i.e. this Cecily is capable of both compassion and ruthlessness. Of course, the fact the French are now winning isn't the only problem for the English - this novel is good at showing all the tensions between the various high nobles jockeying for power while the King, little Henry VI, is still a child, and the fact young Cecily sees two Lords Protector fall and sees what happens to their wives will have its long term impact in both novels. As for her husband, he's basically Ned Stark early on, honorable to a fault; Graithwaite writes Cecily as the greater realist who sees a bit sooner than he does where this is all going once it becomes increasingly clear adult Henry VI is listening to whover talks to him last and that Marguerite (also the realist in her marraige) has classifiied Richard of York as dangerous competition.
As mentioned, both novels take care to introduce the other ladies playing a role early on and to present them as three dimensional, and give them interesting relationships with Cecily. Cecily meets Jacquetta in France when they're both sixteen, recently married (Jacquetta to the Duke of Bedford), and though they're quite different, theirs is the kind of friendship where you spent considerable time being annoyed by each other and just putting up with each other because well, circumstances demand it, until suddenly its decades later and you realise the annoying one is actually the person who might just know you better than anyone else who still lives. Marguerite, by contrast, is younger than Cecily, and Cecily feels sorry for her and sympathetic at first, but they inevitably become enemies once Marguerite starts to see Richard of York as a threat (especially since before the birth of Marguerite's son, he is the next male Plantaganet in line for the throne). It's worth pointing out that I think both novels manage to get the difference between character and author pov across, i.e. Cecily is increasingly hostile (and once her son Edmund gets killed, all bridges are burned), but the author thinks Marguerite under the circumstances has no other choice but to do what she does.
Because Cecily looses as many children in childbirth and toddlerdom as survive while travelling with Richard of York through an increasingly convulsing Empire, our heroine keeps going through power plays, negotiations and grief. She also has an apprentice of power politics arc, observing her uncle, Cardinal Beaufort (one of the Regents for Henry VI) and learning a lot from him. In terms of romance, Cecily and Richard already are married when the novel starts, so theirs isn't a falling-in-love type of relationship story, but it is definitely a ups-and-downs-of-a-marriage/negotiating a partnership for life type of story, while there is no doubt they do love each other. Once we're nearing the death of Richard of York and son Edmund, I found myself gripped by increasing dread and cursing historical inevitability. This novels ends shortly after young Edward IV has won his first big battle, so on a happy note for Cecily, but she's at the same time still raw and grieving.
The title of course refers to Cecily, but not exclusively. As the novel itself points out, Elizabeth Woodville, the daughter of Cecily's old friend Jacquetta, Marguerite d'Anjou and the newly introduced in this novel Margaret Beaufort all see their future in securing the throne for their sons and are ready to do anything to achieve that aim. Perhaps the most unexpected and satisfying relationship is the mentor/protegé one between Cecily and Margaret Beaufort. Who learns a lot from and models herself on Cecily, so much so that in the end she outmaneouvres her fatally (Margaret Beaufort being the mother of Henry Tudor). Margaret got terrible press in any Philippa Gregory derived product, while Cecily and her sons and daughter don't fare well in fiction friendly to Margaret and Henry VII, so it was really neat to read a novel where Cecily and Margaret are both written sympathetic and with pretty similar strengths and flaws. (The big difference being that Cecily lucked out in her marriage and Margaret got wedded and bedded and became a mother at age 12.) The novel puts a lot of emphasis on Cecily being good at propaganda and keeping the homefront together early on; i.e. for example, it's Cecily who talks the London city council and Mayor out of opening the gates to Marguerite d'Anjou while her son Edward not yet IV is fighting elswhere, but it's also Cecily who starts the rumour about Marguerite's son being really the son of the Duke of Somerset to disparage the Lancastrian and strengthen the Yorkist claim; young Margaret Beaufort pays attention, and when she later spreads rumours about Cecily's son Richard to help her son Henry, Cecily is ruefully aware where and whom she learned that from.
As mentioned earlier, the relationsihps Cecily has with her children is individualized. Edward is inevitably her favourite and George the family headache, whom she does try to keep alive despite him making this increasingly more difficult. One of my few nitpicks is that this novel has Cecily finding out young Edward was horny and foolish enough to get Eleanor Talbot into bed by promising her marriage in front of a priest shortly after it happened, and do her best to ensure both Eleanor and the priest in question (Stillington) keep mum about this. I mean, I could guess why the author did this (this knowledge enables Cecily to provide this key information to Richard after Edward's death, thus keeping her as a central figure instead of letting her observe only from the sidelines), but it does beg the question whether Cecily, especially if she was as cunning and clear sighted as she's written in these novels, wouldn't have ensured there was a proper annulment instead of this hush hush thing, because without a proper annulment any marriage of Edward's - and at this stage she's naturally hoping for a politically advantageous marriage to a foreign princess - could have been invalidated. I can believe Edward thought this whole thing would go away and wouldn't come up again, especialy once Eleanor was dead, but not Cecily.
As people well versed in the history might have gathered by this critique, yes, the novel goes with "Stillington did tell the truth, no, Richard didn't make that up" in terms of Richard III's justification for taking the throne. This is definitely a Ricardian novel in that he's a positive character, who, no, does not kill his nephews, but unlike other Yorkist novels this doesn't mean his opponents are presented as evil. As mentioned, Margaret Beaufort is essentially Cecily's padawan in this novel, and in many ways her true heir by the time it ends. This is also the first Ricardian novel I've read which could use what we've learned since the discovery of his bones, so this Richard developes a sideways curvature of the spine (scoliosis) as an adolescent, which Cecily doesn't find out until her sons are back from their Burgundian exile and have reconquered England for Edward; the scene in wihich she discoves this is one of the novel's best, and in many ways a turning point, because until then she hasn't spend that much time with this youngest child due to political circumstances (i.e. raging civil war).
As with most novels with a Yorkist slant, from the momend Edward IV dies it's one tragedy after the other. The novel has the interesting psychological explanation for Edward essentially destroying his own health by all the physical overindulgence (too much of everything - drink, food, sex -) so that he goes from invincible battle hero to on his deathbed in basically just a decade by him never quite getting over the fact he had to fight and kill Cousin Warwick, his former bff. (Cecily reflects this is one of the differences between men and women - Warwick, her nephew, was essentially dead to her the moment he betrayed Edward..) It ends a few months after Richard III's death, and there's no getting around the fact Cecily has now outlived all but two of her many children and has seen the destruction of all her hopes, but the author manages to make the most of the fact not so much that her bloodline will continue via her granddaughter, Elizabeth of York, but that Margaret Beaufort is a worthy opponent/successor, and Cecily has made her peace with her.
In conclusion: two very readable historical novels about one character from the Wars of the Roses who despite being important hasn't gotten such a well written central spotlight yet. Can reccomend.
Now, on to the spoiler section.
The first novel opens with the burning of Jeanne d'Arc, St. Joan, at Rouen. Which is such a clever choice. Young Cecily and her husband were in France at the time, it immediately establishes the 100-Years-War context, and it introduces Cecily's character - who doesn't look away though it's a hard thing to watch, who quietly prays with Joan but considers her execution the correct thing to happen - in the moral ambiguity the author goes for, i.e. this Cecily is capable of both compassion and ruthlessness. Of course, the fact the French are now winning isn't the only problem for the English - this novel is good at showing all the tensions between the various high nobles jockeying for power while the King, little Henry VI, is still a child, and the fact young Cecily sees two Lords Protector fall and sees what happens to their wives will have its long term impact in both novels. As for her husband, he's basically Ned Stark early on, honorable to a fault; Graithwaite writes Cecily as the greater realist who sees a bit sooner than he does where this is all going once it becomes increasingly clear adult Henry VI is listening to whover talks to him last and that Marguerite (also the realist in her marraige) has classifiied Richard of York as dangerous competition.
As mentioned, both novels take care to introduce the other ladies playing a role early on and to present them as three dimensional, and give them interesting relationships with Cecily. Cecily meets Jacquetta in France when they're both sixteen, recently married (Jacquetta to the Duke of Bedford), and though they're quite different, theirs is the kind of friendship where you spent considerable time being annoyed by each other and just putting up with each other because well, circumstances demand it, until suddenly its decades later and you realise the annoying one is actually the person who might just know you better than anyone else who still lives. Marguerite, by contrast, is younger than Cecily, and Cecily feels sorry for her and sympathetic at first, but they inevitably become enemies once Marguerite starts to see Richard of York as a threat (especially since before the birth of Marguerite's son, he is the next male Plantaganet in line for the throne). It's worth pointing out that I think both novels manage to get the difference between character and author pov across, i.e. Cecily is increasingly hostile (and once her son Edmund gets killed, all bridges are burned), but the author thinks Marguerite under the circumstances has no other choice but to do what she does.
Because Cecily looses as many children in childbirth and toddlerdom as survive while travelling with Richard of York through an increasingly convulsing Empire, our heroine keeps going through power plays, negotiations and grief. She also has an apprentice of power politics arc, observing her uncle, Cardinal Beaufort (one of the Regents for Henry VI) and learning a lot from him. In terms of romance, Cecily and Richard already are married when the novel starts, so theirs isn't a falling-in-love type of relationship story, but it is definitely a ups-and-downs-of-a-marriage/negotiating a partnership for life type of story, while there is no doubt they do love each other. Once we're nearing the death of Richard of York and son Edmund, I found myself gripped by increasing dread and cursing historical inevitability. This novels ends shortly after young Edward IV has won his first big battle, so on a happy note for Cecily, but she's at the same time still raw and grieving.
The title of course refers to Cecily, but not exclusively. As the novel itself points out, Elizabeth Woodville, the daughter of Cecily's old friend Jacquetta, Marguerite d'Anjou and the newly introduced in this novel Margaret Beaufort all see their future in securing the throne for their sons and are ready to do anything to achieve that aim. Perhaps the most unexpected and satisfying relationship is the mentor/protegé one between Cecily and Margaret Beaufort. Who learns a lot from and models herself on Cecily, so much so that in the end she outmaneouvres her fatally (Margaret Beaufort being the mother of Henry Tudor). Margaret got terrible press in any Philippa Gregory derived product, while Cecily and her sons and daughter don't fare well in fiction friendly to Margaret and Henry VII, so it was really neat to read a novel where Cecily and Margaret are both written sympathetic and with pretty similar strengths and flaws. (The big difference being that Cecily lucked out in her marriage and Margaret got wedded and bedded and became a mother at age 12.) The novel puts a lot of emphasis on Cecily being good at propaganda and keeping the homefront together early on; i.e. for example, it's Cecily who talks the London city council and Mayor out of opening the gates to Marguerite d'Anjou while her son Edward not yet IV is fighting elswhere, but it's also Cecily who starts the rumour about Marguerite's son being really the son of the Duke of Somerset to disparage the Lancastrian and strengthen the Yorkist claim; young Margaret Beaufort pays attention, and when she later spreads rumours about Cecily's son Richard to help her son Henry, Cecily is ruefully aware where and whom she learned that from.
As mentioned earlier, the relationsihps Cecily has with her children is individualized. Edward is inevitably her favourite and George the family headache, whom she does try to keep alive despite him making this increasingly more difficult. One of my few nitpicks is that this novel has Cecily finding out young Edward was horny and foolish enough to get Eleanor Talbot into bed by promising her marriage in front of a priest shortly after it happened, and do her best to ensure both Eleanor and the priest in question (Stillington) keep mum about this. I mean, I could guess why the author did this (this knowledge enables Cecily to provide this key information to Richard after Edward's death, thus keeping her as a central figure instead of letting her observe only from the sidelines), but it does beg the question whether Cecily, especially if she was as cunning and clear sighted as she's written in these novels, wouldn't have ensured there was a proper annulment instead of this hush hush thing, because without a proper annulment any marriage of Edward's - and at this stage she's naturally hoping for a politically advantageous marriage to a foreign princess - could have been invalidated. I can believe Edward thought this whole thing would go away and wouldn't come up again, especialy once Eleanor was dead, but not Cecily.
As people well versed in the history might have gathered by this critique, yes, the novel goes with "Stillington did tell the truth, no, Richard didn't make that up" in terms of Richard III's justification for taking the throne. This is definitely a Ricardian novel in that he's a positive character, who, no, does not kill his nephews, but unlike other Yorkist novels this doesn't mean his opponents are presented as evil. As mentioned, Margaret Beaufort is essentially Cecily's padawan in this novel, and in many ways her true heir by the time it ends. This is also the first Ricardian novel I've read which could use what we've learned since the discovery of his bones, so this Richard developes a sideways curvature of the spine (scoliosis) as an adolescent, which Cecily doesn't find out until her sons are back from their Burgundian exile and have reconquered England for Edward; the scene in wihich she discoves this is one of the novel's best, and in many ways a turning point, because until then she hasn't spend that much time with this youngest child due to political circumstances (i.e. raging civil war).
As with most novels with a Yorkist slant, from the momend Edward IV dies it's one tragedy after the other. The novel has the interesting psychological explanation for Edward essentially destroying his own health by all the physical overindulgence (too much of everything - drink, food, sex -) so that he goes from invincible battle hero to on his deathbed in basically just a decade by him never quite getting over the fact he had to fight and kill Cousin Warwick, his former bff. (Cecily reflects this is one of the differences between men and women - Warwick, her nephew, was essentially dead to her the moment he betrayed Edward..) It ends a few months after Richard III's death, and there's no getting around the fact Cecily has now outlived all but two of her many children and has seen the destruction of all her hopes, but the author manages to make the most of the fact not so much that her bloodline will continue via her granddaughter, Elizabeth of York, but that Margaret Beaufort is a worthy opponent/successor, and Cecily has made her peace with her.
In conclusion: two very readable historical novels about one character from the Wars of the Roses who despite being important hasn't gotten such a well written central spotlight yet. Can reccomend.