Who owns Nicola's library?

[owl]

One of the pleasures of the Marlow novels for a lot of people seems to be finding that they share the characters' tastes in reading. There's only one book that I can remember that I read because I'd seen it mentioned—Brat Farrar, and I can see exactly why it's Ginty's sort of book; the situation is one she might romance about, and then there are the horses.

But when I first read the series, I was pleased to see that not only did Nicola read Hornblower and Lord Peter Wimsey, and dislike Dickens, all of which I also did, but that she and Lawrie had read The Flight of the Heron. I'd never met anyone, fictional or otherwise, who had also read it, apart from my mother and sister, and I was amazed (I still haven't met anyone else who's heard of it). Has anyone else had the same experience?

Comments

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

I read The Mask of Apollo and then everything else by Mary Renault because of Nicola, I was already into Lord Peter Wimsey. I read The Daughter of Time in part because of Patrick, iirc

[white_hart]

I read Hornblower because of Nicola. And loved it, and was very pleased to discover in the early days of our relationship that my now husband did too!

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure that I was introduced to Mary Renault by AF too, and I always liked the discussion of what they were reading, and the way it was sometimes at least slightly linked to the action (eg Persuasion in The Ready Made Family, and the Brontes in Peter's Room). I'm afraid I've never been able to get into Naval fiction though - maybe I should try again. There is a reasonably good discussion of the reading in the Marlows and their Maker. I've never read The Flight of the Heron, and can't remember where Nicola and Lawrie mention reading it, but maybe it's another one to try. I have read The Daughter of Time (a while ago), but, despite my general enthusiasm for AF and Patrick, I am still not convinced of Richard 111's innocence. It would have been total bad judgement not to produce the Princes before Bosworth if he still had them, and placing them in the Tower was sinister to begin with (as opposed to a country house with tutors,etc if he was truly being the Good Uncle). One comment that he was not so bad in York, which may have been politic, does not seem like definite evidence to me - but I am not an expert. Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I also read most of the Winsey novels - I think also inspired by AF, although I also remember them being on TV around about the time I read them. I used to think that Sayers could be bit snobby - but actually maybe she was not too bad by the standard of her time - I remember Wimsey's society sister marrying the police inspector that helps him (forgot his name) who is certainly not a complete idiot, which seems quite innovative.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

But the Tower then was a royal palace - it didn't become a prison until much later.
And he didn't need to "produce" them, at a time when no-one doubted him, and when their mother was a member of his court.
It was Henry who failed to produce them and who needed and failed to account for them.

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I think the latest research shows that there were rumours that Richard had done away with the boys before Henry landed. It seems unlikely that so many would have supported Henry if Richard could have produced at least some evidence of what happened to them. Even by the standards of the time, it was very odd that they just disappeared into the Tower. I'm pretty sure that it was being used as both a prison and a palace at the time, but still it seems a less than ideal place to keep young boys, who would normally be considered to need fresh air and exercise. I suppose Richard's possible innocence will remain a good conspiracy theory, but I just don't see that there is much evidence to support it. Just got my computer back from the Apple Shop.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

>>>>>>Even by the standards of the time, it was very odd that they just disappeared into the Tower.

I'm not a passionate advocate for Richard's innocence. I simply think that a case can be made.
1. Yes indeed, the question was raised in France about the fact that the princes were not in public view. But, if the question was valid, why didn't their mother or sister, who were at Richard's court, raise the alarm? I seem to remember that Tey is good on this - something like "Oh I know he did kill my little boys but he's not so bad really"?
She also points out that there is an obvious suspect on Henry's side for the French rumour.

2. If you are expecting an invasion (from someone who had even less claim than yourself or your nephews - who were at least sons of a reigning monarch, although illegitimate, which Henry wasn't) wouldn't you want to ensure their safety as potential future heirs?

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

Thank-you for your comments, but they don't make much sense to me as a defence of Richard. He was running a dictatorship, and not a modern democracy. I'm not quite sure what you mean by raising the alarm, but the boys' mother and sister were under the control of Richard, and essentially under house arrest and simply not in a position to go to the police or something (which didn't exist anyway). I'm not sure what the French rumour was, but I think there is definite evidence that reliable people, present in England at the time, were reporting definite rumours of the death of the boys, due to Richard ( eg Mancini). Tey was not a historian at all - she was just trying to build a plausible detective novel case. According to Richard, the boys were not potential heirs as they were illegitimate. It is certainly true that the grounds of this judgement (which related to a possible pre-contract on their father's part before he married their mother) were highly dubious and could probably have been quite easily overturned, making them the heirs, and not Richard. Richard thus had clear grounds for killing them, and was fighting for sheer survival at Bosworth, not to be restored as Regent or whatever. Anyway, if he had them, why didn't he produce them? This would have certainly silenced the rumours. It is probably fair to say that both Henry and Richard had grounds for getting rid of the boys ( Henry legitimized his reign by marrying their sister Elizabeth) and this appears to be the source of the theories of Richard's innocence (particularly for people who hate the Tudors, and blame them for the rot of the modern world, although it doesn't seem to me that the Wars of the Roses were that great) , but they were definitely in Richard's control when they disappeared, and rumours of their death preceded Henry's landing, which to me is pretty strong evidence of guilt.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

It's not the case that Richard was "running a dictatorship". He was the Regent (no whatever about it!) appointed by his brother, and had an excellent career military record in loyalty to his brother and his country.
There is ample record of mistrust and dislike of his brother's wife's family, which tended, of course, to support the stories of the pre-contracts, of which one is more dubious than the other.

>>>>>the boys' mother and sister were under the control of Richard, and essentially under house arrest

There is ample contemporary record that their mother and sister were appearing in public and at court, so it would not have been difficult for them to communicate any concern they had about the safety of the boys, which was what I meant by "raise the alarm".

>>>>>they were definitely in Richard's control when they disappeared, and rumours of their death preceded Henry's landing, which to me is pretty strong evidence of guilt.

There is no record of their disappearance in Richard's lifetime, nor of concern about their saferty, except, as we are agreed, for the French rumour. There is no record of any demand on Richard to produce them. This suggests that there was no reason to do so - which further suggests that it was known that they were alive.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

>>>>Henry legitimized his reign by marrying their sister Elizabeth

Er - no, he legitimized his reign by conquest, and then by executing a number of Richard's supporters for treason(by pre-dating his reign to the day before Bosworth).

By marrying daughter Elizabeth, he won (for as long as he needed it)
the support of mother Elizabeth's family. Edward might have appointed a member of his wife's family as Regent. He didn't do that, and that was what opened the way to Henry's invasion. Some families thought that Henry was preferable to the risk of rule by Woodville. They didn't anticipate that marriage. Not that it did the Woodvilles much good in the long run.

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

Richard opposed any involvement of the Woodvilles in the Regency on the grounds that they might try to take total control of government or something( obviously his job). As he had Elizabeth Woodville's brother, Earl Rivers, ambushed and summarily executed I really don't think they had much of a chance however.Also, Henry did not conquer England, he won a battle with the support of many who had come over from Richard. By legitimize I meant Henry strengthed his right to rule, which was certainly not very strong on birth. If there had been any tradition of women ruling in their own right at the time, it should have been Elizabeth. Maybe we should stop this as we seem to disagree fundamantally on Richard, although I am starting to think that you might do well writing alternative histories.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

Richard opposed any involvement of the Woodvilles in the Regency on the grounds that they might try to take total control of government or something (obviously his job)

Just so - according to his brother's wish - who could have appointed his wife (or any of the Woodvilles) Regent, but did not.

>>>>>I am starting to think that you might do well writing alternative histories.

Er - isn't that what you are doing, when you say that Richard was running a dictatorship, whereas he was his brother's appointed Regent?

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I meant that Richard was running a dictatorship in the sense that all monarchs of the time were - he simply did not have modern constraints on his behaviour, but there is plenty of evidence that even by the standards of the time he went too far. There is evidence that Earl Rivers was made a guardian by Edward - it simply would not have been normal to appoint a non-Royal Regent.

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

Actually I guess that the Queen could have been considered Royal through her marriage but women being given any real power was unusual at the time, and Edward probably thought it could have contributed to further de-stabilization, or was just sexist (in the manner of his time). I realize now that by conquest you probably mean Right of Conquest, which I think that Henry did claim, but obviously he was not William the Conquereor, and still needed Elizabeth to strengthen his claim. We are clearly not going to solve the mystery of the princes, although I think that the evidence is against Richard, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

>>It seems unlikely that so many would have supported Henry if Richard could have produced at least some evidence of what happened to them.

I'm sorry - I missed this remark. I'm not sure what you mean by "so many".
When and where is it recorded that Henry raised support by reference to what might have happened to them?
I've already said that I don't know of any contemporary demand on Richard to "produce" the boys (let alone to produce "evidence of what happened to them")
Being Welsh myself, I'm inclined to sympathy with the Twdor case that conquest and acclamation is more important than heritage. But I've never heard any suggestion that, in his case, acclamation preceded conquest - especially as, in the absence of the boys, there were other candidates that took precedence over Henry, so it's difficult to see why he should have wanted to use them as a rallying call.

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I am with Nicola on Dickens, I have to admit - although I've always felt slightly guilty about it. I've read David Copperfield, Hard Times, Great Expectations and Oliver Twist and some of the stories like The Signal Man and The Christmas Carol but I do feel a little bad about the amount of Dickens I haven't read. I keep meaning to, but I'm just not that enthusiastic. If I get my reading together I'll probably tackle Bleak House before Hornblower. Hard Times is probably my favourite of the ones I've read for being slightly satirical.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

If I get my reading together I'll probably tackle Bleak House before Hornblower. Hard Times is probably my favourite of the ones I've read for being slightly satirical.

Oh! Hard Times for me too!
That was a huge argument with the Beloved Deceased who much preferred Bleak House, which I really couldn't get on with.
But I read Hornblower long before I read Dickens, and I read both long before I read Forest - because I had access to my father's library long before I found Forest in the public library.

[rosathome.livejournal.com]

I can't bear Dickens either so, on Miss Cromwell's advice that Dickens-haters invariably enjoy Thackeray, I started Henry Esmond, but I couldn't get into it. I read Hornblower because of Ioan Gruffudd, not Nicola. Though it was her recommendation that led me onto Ramage.

I was always pleased that she liked Peter Wimsey too. And I completely sympathise with her finding the characters real in the way Ann never could.

[legionseagle.livejournal.com]

Another for Mary Renault, Tey and Sayers

Probably a lot of others, too - I did a talk on it at the AF conference and it should be in the proceedings, when published.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

My chief regret in not liking Autumn Term the first time I read it, aged about 9, is that if I had liked it I should have discovered Renault before I was 15, and Sayers before I was 25. If only I had started with a different AF!

[the_antichris.livejournal.com]

I read The Mask of Apollo on Nicola's recommendation, but she seems to have been struck by entirely different aspects of the book, including some that I managed to miss on a first reading. Very confusing.

[antfan.livejournal.com]

me too - that "fab delirious bit where he acts Hamlet" (or something like that) - actually it's hardly mentioned in the book, and it's not really that fab IMO. I never picked up that it was Hamlet just from reading Mask of Appollo either - obviously a very ignorant teenager, unlike Nicola.

Sudden thought: I wonder if AF was interested in spiritualism? Because in this passage Nicola is wondering about reincarnation, and elsewhere we know she is scared of ghosts (which always seems very unNicola-like to me.). Or are these the kind of superstitions people fall prey to when they are not strong catholics - a bit like Jukie's do-it-yourself theology?

[the_antichris.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's what I was thinking of!

It's interesting that Nicola's scared of ghosts, because otherwise she's so practical, and yet it had never occurred to me to think of it as anything but a coherent whole.

r are these the kind of superstitions people fall prey to when they are not strong catholics

Doesn't Patrick have a family ghost? Or am I making that up?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. It's in FAlconer's Lure. so I guess Patrick must believe in ghosts too (but it's Nicola who's frightened of them).

There's also a discussion in Players and the Rebels about ghosts - Hamlet's father has to be a catholic ghost, because only purgatory gives up its inhabitants, heaven and hell don't. So does the catholic faith actually allow for ghosts? Sounds odd to me, but I am rather theologically challenged.

[rosathome.livejournal.com]

Well, in Falconer's Lure, there's no hint that Patrick is Catholic, rather the reverse. So she might have lumbered them with a ghost without thinking of it as a Catholic thing.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the Tudor books, but isn't the ghost explained in those?

[mina-laury.livejournal.com]

I presume you mean 'or are these the kind of superstitions people in AF's universe fall prey to when they are not strong Catholics'?

In any case, Patrick is also prone to superstition - the belief, for example, that prayers said in bed are worthless. Or would you contend that he is a Catholic, but not a strong one?

I don't see any mention of spiritualism in the books, but I'd be interested to see any references others manage to find.`

[antfan.livejournal.com]

yes, that is what I meant - I'm an atheist/agnostic myself, which is perhaps why I find the religious aspects of AF's books intriguing and also puzzling. As I've said in another thread somewhere, I was astonished when I found out she was a catholic, as I'd always found her catholic characters (notably Patrick) extremely unappealing, and her reflective, open-minded characters (Nick/Nicola, Will, Miranda etc) extremely convincing and attractive, so tended to assume she stood with them. (Then again, its many many years since I read Attic Term - out of the library - which I believes deals most overtly with these issues.)

You are quite right of course that the ghost reference precedes AF deciding to make Patrick a catholic and is probably not terribly relevant to anything. It is intriguing that Patrick does retain these superstitious aspects for all his rather priggish self-righteousness.

[jesssoph.livejournal.com]

I met Hornblower in January 1975, probably 2 years before I met Nicola, but made the acquaintance of Ramage on Nicola's recommendation. I had met Ewen Cameron in 1976, when my mother gave me the box set of the Heron trilogy for my tenth birthday.

I started to like Dickens at 15, saw Miriam Margolyes in Dickens' Women 2 weeks ago BTW. Already knew The Daughter of Time before finding it in AF, but didn't read Brat Farrar until 5 years ago. Wimsey I'm not sure I always like, Mary Renault I always do. The Eleanor Farjeon story ...and a Pearl in the Myddes I finally read about 3-4 years ago.

I definitely don't know as much poetry as the Marlows, or Patrick for that matter, but I love Persuasion - it's my favourite Austen, for which you can blame Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root!

I have to say I must be a proof of Crommie's Dickens/Thackeray statement, in reverse - I don't like Thackeray. Except The Rose and the Ring! I do own the Jack Hobbs book Rowan and Nicola talk about but it's on loan to the MCC library (that's Melbourne not Marylebone!) so I don't actually possess it at the moment. In fact my copy of The Cricket Term is also on loan to the MCC library at the moment.

Anything authored by a Brontë leaves me cold. Off the top of my head, can't think of others...

[richenda.livejournal.com]

>>>>>>>One of the pleasures of the Marlow novels for a lot of people seems to be finding that they share the characters' tastes in reading
>>>>>>>>she and Lawrie had read The Flight of the Heron.


I don't know it. Is it Heron as in actual birds?
If so, my equivalent would be Cranes Flying South (aged about 8) and The Goshawk (1950s) and The Scandaroon (1970s).
The second and third have Forest resonance and I've recently been told that Forest used Goshawk as a source for her falconry, also The Once And Future King, which I first met in around 1958.

Ewen Cameron

[catwithcreamy.livejournal.com]

I was absolutely mad about the Flight of the Heron and its sequels when I was 12, and in fact the fact that Nicola had read it was what hooked me into reading the Marlow books (which I discovered in my 20s). Now I'm thrilled to discover this whole community! Am thoroughly enjoying all the fanfics etc - hope to try my hand at one some day..