Q&A with Susan Higginbotham

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 | Guest Posts, Susan Higginbotham

We are lucky enough to have with us today the wonderful Susan Higginbotham answering questions about her latest novel, THE QUEEN OF LAST HOPES about Margaret of Anjou and the Lancastrian fight for the throne of England.

 

Thank you for joining us, Susan. Let’s dive in…

1) Your last two novels, THE QUEEN OF LAST HOPES and THE STOLEN CROWN have encompassed the War of the Roses. What draws you to this period again and again?

 It’s a period of such high drama, with such extremes of behavior. There are the people who remained unshakably faithful to their cause even when it meant exile, imprisonment, and separation from their families, like John de Vere, Earl of Oxford. There are heart-stopping instances of disloyalty, like Richard, Duke of Gloucester’s betrayal of his brother’s sons after Edward IV’s death. There are the families who lost entire generators of sons, like the Beauforts. There are the women who had to watch as their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers were wiped out, and who had to rebuild their lives afterward. There are the sudden reversals of fortune that left Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, begging for his bread in the streets of Bruges and that brought Henry Tudor, an obscure exile, to the throne. There are the mysteries, like the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. There’s the handsome, charismatic young king, Edward IV, who could have had any European princess as a bride, and instead chose a widowed commoner and married her in secret. There are the steel-spined Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of Anjou herself. Even the weather—the blinding snowstorm at Towton, the mist at Barnet—was dramatic.

2) Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England, is an icon of Lancastrian loyalty. If you had to take sides, which would you prefer personally, the House of Lancaster or the House of York?

I think initially I would have taken the side of the House of Lancaster, which after all had been ruling for decades before York dusted off his claim to the throne. I came to dislike the Duke of York while I was researching my novel—he strikes me as an opportunist and a bully, who would have probably forced Henry VI to resign his crown had York survived the Battle of Wakefield. I suspect Edward of Lancaster, if he had ever fallen into York’s hands, would have ended up as the first Prince in the Tower. On the other hand, I doubt I would have had the fortitude to stick with the Lancastrian cause until the bitter end. I imagine that I would have been one of those who gave up on what seemed to be a lost cause and submitted to Edward IV after the massive Lancastrian defeat at Towton. It wouldn’t have been that hard, as I actually like Edward IV a good deal. He could be ruthless, but he wasn’t needlessly cruel, and he was an effective military leader, not the mindless playboy some novelists have made him out to be.

3) Often denigrated by historians, Margaret of Anjou was a powerful woman who laid the groundwork for the House of Tudor to take the throne in 1485. What about Margaret of Anjou captured your imagination and made you decide to devote a novel to her?

When I started researching the Wars of the Roses in depth while working on THE STOLEN CROWN, I realized how different the historical Margaret was from the lurid picture of the Evil Queen that’s painted by many novelists and even by some historians. She wasn’t a power-hungry, homicidal maniac, but a loyal wife and mother trying her best to uphold the rights of her husband and her son in a society that didn’t approve of queens, especially French-born queens, who stepped outside their traditional role of breeder and intercessor. It took a courageous, gallant woman to keep fighting what was increasingly a lonely battle, and I came to admire that woman so much, and to deplore the way she’s been caricatured in some other novels, that I decided to devote my novel to her.

 

 

4) The lovely title, THE QUEEN OF LAST HOPES, comes from a poem written by Margaret’s father, quoted in the one of the final scenes of the novel. For me, this poem encapsulated Margaret’s life of hardship and her many sacrifices. How far into your research did you find this poem? When did you know that you would include it in your novel? 

I’m so glad you asked this question, because so far, you’re the only person who has commented on the poem, and I did think it summed up Margaret very well. I came across an English translation of René of Anjou’s romance, The Book of the Love-Smitten Heart, fairly early in writing the novel, but it’s really not until fairly late when I decided to use an excerpt from it in my novel. I didn’t want to leave Margaret entirely bereft at the end of her story, but to leave her and the reader with a sense that her struggle had not been in vain, and I thought the poem helped convey that message.

 One of the things that fascinated me when I researched my novel, actually, was how many men at the time dabbled in poetry. It’s uncertain whether William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, wrote the poems that are attributed to him, but he is known to have had a taste for reading poetry; as a young, single man serving in France and “pining for love,” he was read poetry by Guillaume Benoit. Anthony Woodville, who makes a couple of appearances in THE QUEEN OF LAST HOPES, wrote a poem on the eve of his execution in 1483. Richard Roos, a kinsman of the Thomas Roos who appears in my novel, translated Alan Chartier’s La Belle Dame sans Mercy into English. And then, of course, there were the political poems, like that circulated after Suffolk’s death.

5) One of my favorite aspects of THE QUEEN OF LAST HOPES is the relationship between (Hal) Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset and Margaret of Anjou. Even once he became disloyal to Margaret and the Lancastrians, I still liked him. How did you manage to keep Hal a sympathetic character?

 Hal was actually one of my favorite characters—perhaps even my favorite, but don’t tell Margaret! I looked at the situation that led him to desert from his eyes. When I did, I saw a young man who was from a noble family but who was without a permanent home or viable marriage prospects, who was cut off from contact with his mother and sisters, whose younger brother was languishing in prison, who had an illegitimate child whom he couldn’t properly support. Who wouldn’t be tempted to make his peace with the king in such circumstances? But Hal clearly was uneasy with his decision to go over to Edward IV—if not, why would he have gone back to the Lancastrian cause in late 1463, knowing that the full might of the king would be against him and that falling into Yorkist hands again would mean certain death? When I saw Hal’s situation from that standpoint, I could understand the choices that he made and make him into a character that readers could like.

6) What are your working on now?

My work-in-progress is set in Tudor England during the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I. I can’t say much more about it, but the main characters have acquired fairly bad reputations, and I’m looking forward to showing them in a different light. I can say one thing: Researching a novel set during the Tudor period is worlds apart from researching one set in the fourteenth or even the fifteenth century. There is a staggering amount of material available, much of it online, and scarcely a day passes when some new Tudor-related book or article isn’t published. In some ways that makes research easier, but in other ways it makes it so much harder, because one’s research is never done! It’s proving great fun, though.

Thanks for interviewing me, Christy!

Thank you for joining us, Susan and for giving us such lovely insights into your novel and your methods. We can’t wait for the next one. 

No comments yet.

Leave a comment