Royal Diaries: Elizabeth I

I have always been a reader even when I was a tiny human. So, imagine my surprise when I read Queen E's letters and I'm flash-backing hardcore to my childhood. "Why?" you ask? Because Elizabeth's letters remind me of the greatest books of my youth. The Royal Diaries series. And isn't it just a pretty damn good coincidence that I thought of that because guess who is one of the royals that starred in this series?

That's right, ladies and gents! Childhood meet Real Life. 

Now, it's been YEARS since I've read the Royal Diaries but I still was feeling some pretty strong nostalgia. 

The Royal Diaries are complete tonypandy. Sure, it's historical fiction so there's obviously some things that have been moved around a bit to fit the mold. But it's also historical fiction catered to children and young adults. That series laid a foundation for my reading habits and interests as I became older. I wouldn't have developed a love for Cleopatra if I hadn't read her Royal Diary. Same for Anastasia, Marie Antoinette, Mary Queen of Scots, etc. etc. etc.

There is no way to know what these young women thought when they were in their tweens but they plant a seed for kids to find out more.

So Queen E's letters were like candy for my inner child. But instead of complete tonypandy, these letters are R.E.A.L REAL!! Like, actual facts from the woman herself. Actual words! HNNNGHHGH I LOVE IT!

But what makes these letters even more awesome than they already are to me, is that we finally get a "voice" to this historical figure. We can listen to her talking when she's young, old, being a bad-ass, or trying to save her ass. We get a sense that she is a human being that we can tangibly see actually existing.

Obviously, Richard III existed. And obviously so did Caesar, but to see real paintings of Elizabeth and also read her speeches and private letters add a more colorful dynamic to her character that makes her more real. yes Yes YES! And now for my favorite E meme:

History: Is there some fact in the fiction?

On the first day of class, we discussed what we believed to be the meaning of history and fiction. Many of us saw a clear distinction between the two. For the most part, the consensus was history is a series of events that are factual and fiction is a concoction of the imagination- made up events, if you will. After reading Tey’s, The Daughter of Time, it is clear that both history and fiction can be one of the same and that it is very difficult to sway from popular beliefs that have been credited as history. But what is history? Is it just a series of beliefs that have been adapted over time and commonly viewed as factual? These are questions that arise from the novel. Even until this very day Richard III is viewed as the epitome of villainy. Our protagonist, Alan Grant, begins to question that view because to him, how could the face in the portrait be a murderer when there is so much sadness and pain behind his eyes? Grant adopts this notion of topandy; an idea that much of what is viewed as history is just a myth.

Now I am no history buff and I really do not know much about English history, but I question why Richard III became the quintessential villain of English history. Then I turned to something that interests me a little more- American history. I googled “American historical myths” and came across this list of top 10 “myths” that Americans believe to be fact (here is the link if anyone is interested:  http://all-that-is-interesting.com/american-history-myths ). The first myth took me by surprise. It was the story of Paul Revere and how he had warned American troops that “the British are coming!” According to the article (and I am sure if I researched it more in depth I would find similar evidence), the story has been twisted in a way to make Revere appear to be this grand hero, when in fact he did not utter those words and was accompanied by a group of people. Despite what actually happened, Americans still views Revere as the quintessential American patriot.  But this was the point. The story was adapted as a sort of American propaganda to instill pride and patriotism in the American public. This idea is very similar to Grant’s notion that Richard III was portrayed as this evil creature to arouse support for the Tudor monarchy.

I concluded my reading and research of historical myths questioning history as a whole. Obviously, many events occurred and are told as they had happened, but it is difficult to know the truth behind everything that we believe to be fact. Were heroes really heroes? Were villains really villains? I guess we really will never know. But in the mean time, history really does make one hell of a story.

Good/Bad Richard III: Will We Ever Know?

Here we go! Another semester, another blog post!

Last semester, I read Beowulf and I was quite irritated at what little back-story was given regarding the "villain" of the story, Grendel. In my head, since nothing was given in the pages, I made up some pretty elaborate back stories regarding who he was as a character and why he was the way he was. What we were given was that he was a cruel monster who was cast aside with his mother and who also happened to wreak all kinds of havoc on the local populace. Was he truly a monster or was he misunderstood? Maybe he was the bastard son of the local king and only killed a ton of people because he was pissed that he was cast aside because of his birth. I used to think like this all throughout reading that story and I was very happy to do it again with our most recent reading.

Richard III.

Not much is really known about him. And like with Beowulf, that irritated me. However, DoT really delves into the possibilities of his history. Was he a cruel uncle who had his two goons slaughter his sons? Maybe. Was he really in love with his wife (and cousin) Anne or was he just using her for her fortune and knew he needed a queen for his impending rule? The mysteries are endless and I'm LOVING IT!!! I mean his motto is Loyalty Binds Me. Even his friggin' MOTTO is mysterious!!

There's no clear cut answer! Was he a villain or not? Was he a loyal brother or was it a facade to cover up his scheming plots? Did he mourn the loss of his nephews' disappearance or was he celebrating in the royal chambers? WE HAVE NO IDEA!! And while this is frustrating as all hell for historians (and me, let's be honest), I can't seem to help but love the mystery this book brings to life.

However, I just about threw the book across the room when Grant kept reading Sir Thomas More's work. And he read it for FOREVER. I kept screaming (in my head, ofcourse, I'm not crazy) at Grant that More was during Henry VIII's time NOT Richard III. You guys will have no idea how happy I was when Grant came to the realization that what he was reading was a farce. Here's what I imagined:

The fact that there was no "current" historian in Richard's day was immensely puzzling. Where did Edward's historian go? And why didn't he stick around to document Richard's life? And HELLO how about the huge elephant in the room regarding his remains!? What's the deal with that?! How did he friggin' get buried under a parking lot!?UGH! Too many questions not enough answers but I feel like that just opens up the mind for us to make our own predictions.

Loved the book and I can't wait to keep reading and finding out more mysteries regarding Richard III.