Different Views of the Prince of Orange

It's difficult to write about the battle of Waterloo without touching on the noted historical figures involved. Napoleon and Wellington. Lord Uxbridge, Marshal Ney, and other noted military commanders. And one other, who if he could not be called a noted commander, did hold a command in the battle - William, Prince of Orange, later William II of the Netherlands.

The Prince of Orange was born in the Hague on 11 December, 1792, eldest son of William I of the Netherlands and Wilhelmine of Prussia. When he was two, allied British-Hanoverian troops left the Netherlands and French troops swept in to join the anti-Orangist forces. The royal family fled to England. William went on to study at Oxford and in 1811, at 18, became an aide-de-camp to Wellington in the Peninsular War. He became one of the close knit "family" of Wellington's aides, kick-named "Slender Billy."

In 1813, Billy returned to the Netherlands when his father regained the throne. In 1814 he was briefly betrothed to the Prince Regent's daughter Princess Charlotte, but Charlotte wasn't keen on either Billy or on living in the Netherlands and ended the engagement.

In 1815 when Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to power in France, the prince was given temporary command of the Allied forces in the Netherlands until Wellington arrived from Vienna. Billy, who regarded Wellington with something akin to hero worship, was quite willing to relinquish command, but Wellington's relations with the prince's father were less amicable. Partly to mollify King William, Billy was given command of the I coprs, though he was not yet three-and-twenty. Young and untried as a commander, Billy ordered troops to form line rather than square three times over the course of Quatre Bras and Waterloo, exposing them to cavalry fire and crippling losses. At Waterloo, when the prince insisted that Baron Ompteda follow the order to form line, Ompteda looked at Billy as though he'd received a death sentence and said simply that in that case he would try to save the lives of his nephews, aged 14 and 15. Both the nephews survived, but Ompteda and dozens of others did not.

Billy was wounded late in the battle and carried from the field by his friend and aide Lord March (son of the Duchess of Richmond, who gave the famous ball at which Wellington received confirmation that the French attack was coming through Quatre Bras).

In An Infamous Army, Georgette Heyer portrays Billy as young and enthusiastic, untried but sympathetic. Bernard Cornwell in Waterloo paints a much more biting picture of an arrogant young royal whose bumbling arrogance costs numerous lives. Cornwell has Richard Sharpe himself shoot the prince he exposes his men needlessly to cavalry fire. My own portrait of Billy in Imperial Scandal is somewhere between the two. Because my hero, Malcolm, has known Billy from childhood, I think he's more inclined to be sympathetic to him than is Richard Sharpe who doesn't share a history with the prince. At the same time Malcolm (and I) can't but be sickened by the lives lost by the prince's wanton stupidity. In my story, Billy is shot by one of the villains who is actually trying to kill Malcolm.

Heyer, Cornwell, and I all use the same facts to paint different portraits of the Prince of Orange. What other historical figures have you read different portrayals of at the hands of different historical novelists? Writers, what challenges have you faced writing about historical characters who've been portrayed in other novels?

Welcome, Mary Wine!

A Lady Can Never Be Too Curious
by Mary Wine
Available Now!



Beneath the Surface of Victorian Life Lies a Very Different World...

Hated and feared by the upper classes, the Illuminists guard their secrets with their lives. Janette Aston's insatiable quest for answers brings her to their locked golden doors, where she encounters the most formidable man she's ever met.

Darius Lawley's job is to eliminate would–be infiltrators, but even he may be no match for Janette's cunning and charm...

A Lady Can Never Be too Curious is set in the Victorian era, 1843. Is there a particular reason you chose that year?

I just wanted to begin this saga during the early years of this period. It was a time of turmoil and change.

How did you become interested in this time period? What you love about it?

I’ve always loved this time and the years which follow. Making historical garments is one of my passions. The bustle is my preferred era but last year I needed to make an early Victorian dress. This was before the cage crinoline. Constructing the taffeta petticoat for that dress was quite an undertaking. Here I am in it for the Victorian fashion show hosted by Deeanne Gist. That skirt is held out by only a petticoat.

What do you like least about this period? Anything that constrained you or that you had to plot carefully around?

Lack of women’s rights. It was a bit of a challenge to make my heroine seek out her adventure when the reality of the period was that women simply did not have the same rights as men.

Anything you flat-out altered or “fudged”? If so, why?

This is a Steam Punk story so there are lots of creations from my imagination. The place I think I fudged the most on was Janette’s open minded views on relationships. Upper Society daughters were raised to be very demure. Not that there weren’t wild ones in the bunch.

Any gaffs or mea culpas you want to fess up to before readers get their hands on the book? I know I always seem to find one after the book has gone to press. *sigh*

Well, we are writing fantasy…aren’t we? The first encounter with the hero is a major …ah…stretch…because Janette is very bold and that would never have happened with a young lady of the time.

Tell us a little about your hero. Something fun, like his favorite childhood pet, or his first kiss.

Darius is very dark. He didn’t want to give up his secrets but he was once rejected by another lady of high society. Being an Illuminist, he was ‘beneath’ her. He dose spend a fair amount of effort on trying to get Jannete to walk away because he’s just not interested in having anything to do with another ‘lady’.

What sparked this book? Was it a character? An historical event? A scene you just couldn’t get out of your head?

All of my books tend to take over my mind, I think my muse claims Attila the Hun as her patron saint. In this case, I was thinking about Steam Punk in general and the few books/movies I’d encountered in the gene. My brain began thinking…what’s the power source? Where is that steam coming from? That was it, my muse was off on a trail that led to Deep Earth Crystals and Illuminist secret societies.

Did you have to do any major research for this book? Did you stumble across anything really interesting that you didn’t already know?

A fair amount. I feel it’s important to get the setting correct.

What/Who do you like to read?

Isobel Carr [Aww, I swear that was with no prompting!], Shannon Butcher, Lucy Monroe and a host of non-fiction historical books.

Care to share a bit about your writing process? Are you a pantser or a plotter? Do you write multiple drafts or clean up as you go?

I am completely insane. That doesn’t really clear anything up, does it? I often sew something between books and during that time, I tend to get a grasp on the outline of the next book.

What are you planning to work on next?

My next work is a Highlander book. It’s the third book in a set, which began with ‘The Highlanders Prize’, will see the second book releasing in Oct 2012 ‘The Trouble With Highlanders’ and this one will finish up the set.

The follow up to ‘A lady Can Never be too Curious’ is on the editors desk and has been titled ‘A Captain Can Never be too Bold’. Look for it in May 2013. So the world can’t end because you see, I have a book releasing after December.

Thanks so much!

Mary Wine
Twitter: @MaryWine_author

The House of Commons opera hat

Rose here! My next book, Sweet Disorder, is set during a Parliamentary election in a small town. The Regency political system is so different from the modern one that I wanted to do plenty of research to make sure I didn't mess it up (for example, one thing that consistently confused my beta readers was that each voter got two votes!). Luckily I'd already done a little research on Parliament for a book proposal that didn't go anywhere (although I haven't given up hope for the future).

One book I read was The Great Palace, by Christopher Jones, about the Houses of Parliament themselves. It was published in 1985 so not up to date, but that didn't matter for my purposes! Some things I learned:

"The Mace, the symbol of Royal authority, must always be present when the House is sitting. Without it, the House is totally powerless."

"The Lord Speaker, accompanied by the mace and doorkeepers, makes her way to Sovereign’s Entrance to await the arrival of the Queen." Image: Parliamentary copyright/ Catherine Bebbington.

More on the Mace from Wikipedia.

"The Serjeant at Arms, Jill Pay, places the mace on the Table to signal that the House is sitting. May 18 2010." Image: Catherine Bebbington. Parliamentary Copyright.

On the next page:

"The Serjeant-at-Arms[...]is the only person in the Chamber allowed to wear a sword." This doesn't make clear to me whether s/he actually wears a sword--I can't see one in the above picture. (But is that a change since 1985?)

Two pages later:

"The House of Commons snuffbox. It is kept by the Principal Doorkeeper. Any Member may ask for a pinch of snuff before going into the Chamber."

According to Wikipedia, "A floral-scented snuff called 'English Rose' is provided for members of the British House of Commons at public expense due to smoking in the House being banned since 1693. A famous silver communal snuff box kept at the entrance of the House was destroyed in an air raid during World War II with a replacement being subsequently presented to the House by Winston Churchill." (The new box was made from the timber recovered from the damaged Chamber.) Nicholas Fairbairn, an MP until 1995, was known during his tenure for being the only person to actually use the snuff.

I'm not sure the snuff is English Rose anymore, though, because check out this 2010 Freedom of Information request I found! The respondent states, among other things, that "The cost of the snuff is approx £6 per tin and the House has purchased 4 tins in 8 years, the cost is paid from Serjeant at Arms' petty cash. There is no specific company make and the House just purchases it from a local tobacconist," and that "Members who have taken snuff in the past year numbered perhaps less than five, Members taking snuff in the present Parliament has yet to occur."

And guess what: it turns out the US Senate has ceremonial snuffboxes too!

But my very, very favorite is this:

"The House of Commons opera hat. The collapsible top hat which Members must wear if they want to raise a point of order during a division [their word for a vote]."

And there's a little picture of an old top hat sitting on a bench.

I was desperately sad to discover that this custom had been discontinued following a recommendation of the Select Committee on the Modernization of the House of Commons:

"64. At present, if a Member seeks to raise a point of order during a division, he or she must speak 'seated and covered'. In practice this means that an opera hat which is kept at each end of the Chamber has to be produced and passed to the Member concerned. This inevitably takes some time, during which the Member frequently seeks to use some other form of covering such as an Order Paper. This particular practice has almost certainly brought the House into greater ridicule than almost any other, particularly since the advent of television. We do not believe that it can be allowed to continue."

Another beautiful image was provided by Hansard's record of the discussion on the issue:

"We recommend a new procedure for raising points of order during a Division. At present, we have the opera hat, and, although some Members may feel that they look particularly fetching in it, it makes the House of Commons look ridiculous when someone wearing the hat is trying to raise a point of order from a seated position while everyone else is milling around and going to vote."

(Sidenote: If anyone writing historical romance with a political dimension doesn't already know about the online Hansard's, here it is! It is saving my life with things like dates of parliamentary recesses, when bills were proposed, &c.)

Can anyone find a picture of the opera hat? Preferably being worn. My Google-fu is failing me.

A Different Kind of History

As historical novelists, the Hoydens all spend a good portion of our writing time delving into the past and finding creative ways to bring it to life. I did that on my most recent project, but in a different way from my usual historical research. The project, His Spanish Bride, is a novella about how my characters, Suzanne and Malcolm Rannoch/Mélanie and Charles Fraser, became betrothed and married. At this point, I know Malcolm and Suzanne/Charles and Mel very well. One of the joys of writing about them is that their dialogue and interactions come very easily while at the same time I feel I'm always finding new aspects of them and their relationship to explore.

Several of the books I've written about the Rannochs/Frasers have been out of chronological order, and I've always found it quite easy to pick up with them at different points in time. But in all the stories they've been married and the parents of at least one child. There are secrets between them, yet in many ways it's their familiarity with each other and shared history that defines them. With the novella, all that was different. Malcom and Suzanne barely know each other at this point in their story. They have yet to develop any intimacy, physical or emotional, They are just coming to know each other, awkward and uncertain. And I felt awkward and uncertain as though I was just coming to know them. Interestingly, I think I had an easier time writing another character, Raoul, because I think he changes less over the subsequent books (though he too changes).

Many writers, including my fellow Hoydens, excel at capturing the magic of characters meeting and falling in love. But even when my books were historical romances rather than historical suspense, I've always preferred to write about characters who already have a shared history. I love creating and exploring a backstory for my characters. In the novella, I was writing that backstory. In the process I learned new things about Suzette/Mel and Malcolm/Charles. including the fact that they were both quite different people before they met. Being married, working together, and being parents changed and shaped them both. In its own way, the novella was research for further books in the series. And like all research it helped me develop a richer, more complex world for my subsequent books.

Do you ever find yourself wanting to know more about characters' backgrounds or to see their backstory dramatized? Writers, do you find it easier to write about characters who share a history or characters who are getting to know each other?

photo credit: Raphael Coffey Photography

2012 "Readers for Life" Literacy Autographing

   

Many of the Hoydens will be in Anaheim for Romance Writers of America's annual conference, so the blog will be quiet until August.

If you happen to live in Southern California, please come see us at the 2012 "Readers for Life" Literacy Autographing! It will be held at the Anaheim Convention Center, Wednesday, July 25, 2012, from 5–8 p.m. in the Ballroom (third floor).

You can find a complete list of authors here. The event is free, though you have to pay for the books, but the proceeds go to ProLiteracy Worldwide, Read Orange County, and Literacy Volunteers—Huntington Valley. Please note: No outside books will be allowed in, which I know is a change from past years. Sorry.

Rant About Poor Scholarship

I’m going to be a bit ranty today. I just saw something on The Daily Mail that really concerns me. Supposedly Hilary Davidson, the fashion curator at the Museum of London, says that the discovery of these two items “totally rewrites” fashion history. To which I say BOLLOCKS!

These items were found in Lengberg Castle in east Tyrol (Austria). They are thought to have been buried c. 1480. I’ve spent 30+ years as a re-enactor studying late 15th century and early 16th century “German” Landsknechts. It’s probably the period I know the most about, and these garments don’t rewrite ANYTHING from where I’m sitting. In fact, they appear to be rather common.

Let’s start with the underpants (please click on the images to enlarge them, I had to make them small to fit them all in). I haven’t the slightest idea how Davidson came to the conclusion that the underwear were for women. Every scrap of evidence I’ve seen supports the opposite conclusion. Here is a detail from The Men’s Bathhouse by Albrecht Dürer, 1498. What are all the MEN wearing? Little undies that tie on the sides. They look suspiciously familiar, don’t they? Not entirely sure how anyone claiming to be a fashion historian with a specialty in the Medieval period could fail to have connected this garment and this image in a heartbeat.

UPDATE: Please see the comment from Nutz below. "Davidson NEVER came to the conclusion that the underpants were for women and I NEVER said so either. I always said that underpants were a male garment in the Middle Ages." So the quote in The Daily Mail is misleading. 

On to the “bra”. Please look closely at this garment. The bottom is frayed. Why? Because there’s something missing. Please look at the side. See all the little eyelet holes? Those are for lacing. What was the MAIN female undergarment of the day? The kirtle (a long, tightly-fitted smock). You can see tons of examples of this garment in the Wenceslaus Bible (dated to the late 14th century). There is NOTHING groundbreaking about finding the top portion of a kirtle. 

I know sensationalism sells, but is it really worth your reputation to make such easily debunked statements? I know I’ve pretty much lost all respect for the Davidson, and I have serious reservations about anything coming out of the Museum of London at this point.  (I'll cut this given that I'm being told Davidson was misquoted). In conclusion, I’ll wait until I hear something from Dr. Jutta Zander-Seidel telling me that SHE thinks these rather common looking garments “totally rewrite” fashion history.

Rant over. Ok, not quite ... Update:

fighting for the pants

More reading for those who just can’t get enough of the topic. Here is Beatrix Nutz’s article for BBC History Magazine, and here is a shorter piece that was posted on the University of Innsbruck website (where it specifically notes that the cache contained men’s clothing, further undercutting the attribution of the underwear as women’s clothing). Given what I’ve seen so far, I stand by my opinion of the find. Is it possible I’ll change my mind? Sure … at least about the “bras” (there are still two I haven’t seen). But not about the underpants. There’s simply no supporting documentation out there for them to be attributed to women, nor is there any reason to pluck them out of a mixed cache of clothing and come to that conclusion. 

UPDATE from Nutz's comment: "As to the “longline bra”: The bottom is NOT frayed. There is a hem at the lower end, even if it is only preserved over a short length. In addition there is NOTHING to indicate that a skirt may have been sewn onto that end thus making it a kirtle. No tiny holes in the fabric where a sewing needle and thread may have passed through.

And the kirtles in the Wenceslaus Bible: They do have narrow shoulder straps like the “longline bra” but I can´t make out anything that even remotely resembles cups. Besides – there´s still the other “bras” from Lengberg that end right below the breasts and are definitely NOT upper parts of dresses."

I don't agree that you can extrapolate from art 100%, so it's not possible to dismiss the tie to the bathing gowns simply because you can't make out cups. But given that Nutz has access to all the "bras", I'll again state that I'm open to having my mind changed on this one. Perhaps the French article will have more and better images? Or perhaps Nutz will post high rez ones somewhere? 

I’d love if they made the dig notes and pictures available. I’d also love to see the final thesis that Nutz is working on, as it’s entirely possible that the article she wrote (and the ensuing coverage in the news) isn’t wholly representational.  I’m attempting to get a hold of the partial notes that a friend had previously reviewed, but the link for them has been removed. More to come, hopefully!

Beating husband w/spindle
while pulling on his pants

Another Update: I found the link to another article in German. The ever lovely GrowlyCub gave it a quick look over since she’s fluent and her report is that all it says is that DNA testing on the underpants was inconclusive in attempting to establish which sex wore them and that all the evidence for women wearing them is confined to art. What it doesn’t mention is that all of said art is allegorical in nature, and you can’t use it to show that women wore underpants any more than you can to show that Landsknecht soldiers wore sandals. (Nutz says in the comments that she agrees with this point, so I clearly misunderstood the articles). The images she’s talking about are all about hen-pecked husbands and adulteresses. They all allude to the woman wearing the man’s garments to assert her authority (the underpants in question) and they frequently show the husband desperately trying to get them back. Here are a couple that aren't in any of the linked articles so far. What needs to be acknowledged is that the power of the image is lost if this was a common woman’s garment. The reason underpants were chosen to symbolize the wife stealing the husband’s power is because the garment was unmistakably seen as masculine during the period.

Printed Gloves

I love highlight strange clothing tidbits. Something I’ve yet to see appear in a novel is a printed glove. They seem to have been quite popular during the Regency period, with many extant examples c. 1800-1830 showing up in museums and at auction. All the examples I've seen are white kidskin with black printing. Some have stripes of classical patterns, others are commemorative, and some are just fanciful.

Can’t you just see ladies wearing something likes these for Nelson or Wellington?

RIPE FOR PLEASURE is still on salefor just $2.99: B&N http://bit.ly/LCsNCe Amazon http://amzn.to/LCtlrK Sony http://bit.ly/N1cB0e Kobo http://bit.ly/Ru9fDh