The Stolen Crown: The Secret Marriage that Forever Changed the Fate of England

This novel meets my first criteria for excellent historical fiction: it is well-researched and true to the contemporary sources.The two protagonists are Katherine "Kate" Woodville, youngest sister of Queen Elizabeth, consort to King Edward IV of England, and Henry "Harry" Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham. In turn, they describe their lives and the effect the political and personal events of their time has upon their marriage.The book begins in 1464, when Kate and Harry are children, with the courtship and marriage of Kate's eldest sister Elizabeth Woodville to young and handsome King Edward IV of England. The Woodvilles are a large and close-knit family whose father Richard is a member of the English gentry and whose mother Jacquetta is a kinswoman of the royal House of Luxembourg. Well-born enough though they are, the Woodvilles are considered upstarts, and Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth, a mere subject, is considered inappropriate by many. To make matters more unbearable to Edward's and Elizabeth's enemies, Elizabeth's numerous sisters are given good marriages, and none is grander than the arranged marriage of Kate Woodville to the fatherless young Duke of Buckingham. Harry is the ward of the Yorkist King and Queen and so has no say in the matter, despite the wealth of his inheritance and his royal bloodline.In Higginbotham's novel, Kate Woodville is spirited, passionate, spontaneous, intelligent, and thoroughly likable. Harry is a far more complex personality, mostly because divided loyalties haunt his youth, as he attempts to reconcile his Lancastrian family ties with his Yorkist upbringing, and his manhood, as he wrestles with his love for Richard of Gloucester, his affection for his wife Kate, and his desire to do the right thing. That he fails to do the right thing and regrets it too late to make amends is the tragedy of his brief life, and his fatal flaw is a love for Richard that blinds him to Richard's amorality, greed, and opportunism.Thanks mainly to the influence of Paul Murray Kendall's biography Richard III, historical novelists have often portrayed Richard as captivated by Buckingham, in whom he sees the charm of his dead brother George. In Higginbotham's novel, however, it is Harry who is enthralled by Richard, whom the younger man has hero-worshipped since childhood. Buckingham's love for Richard is much more potent than his affection for Kate, and leads him to give Richard the weapon he needs to dethrone Edward IV's young son and heir Edward V. It is only when Harry learns of the deaths of Edward V and his little brother that his eyes are opened to Richard. By that time, it is too late. Too late, also, he understands his depth of love for Kate. To make amends, Harry throws his lot with Richard's opposition, who turn to Henry Tudor upon learning of the deaths of Edward IV's sons. The rebellion fails, however, and Harry is taken to Salisbury and executed on Sunday, November 2, 1483.Higginbotham is one of the few to appreciate the irony of this date. Buckingham, who, with Richard, betrayed Edward V, is executed on the date that would have been Edward V's 13th birthday.At a time in which Ricardian historical novels flood the market, often painting Richard as a hero or some 15th century saint and his opponents as evil degenerates, Higginbotham's novel is refreshing. She should be given much credit for coming to her own conclusions instead of attempting to ingratiate herself to a Ricardian audience.I was very impressed by her depth of knowledge, and how she weaves details into the story that only a student of the period would catch -- such as the infuriating succinctness of John Russell, the Bishop of Lincoln, who later might have been the anonymous chronicler who wrote the "Continuation" to the Croyland Chronicles, a primary source of the Yorkist period. I likewise was impressed by the glimpses into the personalities of the minor characters that bring this book and these people to life.It is difficult to discuss The Stolen Crown without dealing at some length with Richard, because he has such a force on Harry's life and actions, and such an impact on Harry's and Kate's marriage. Higginbotham's Richard is fascinating -- a truly Machiavellian creature. Superficially charming, courageous, honorable and amiable, he is ambitious, grasping, opportunistic, devoid of conscience, and egotistical. Convinced that the good he will do as King will outweigh the bad he does to become King, he has no compunction about removing those who might impede him. Harry, however, finds him irresistible, and that is his greatest failing.A clue to Richard's dark nature surfaces when he finds humor in his bullying of the Countess of Oxford, but Harry fails to comprehend it. Harry isn't the only one who can't see through Richard; in Harry's and Kate's dealings with Richard's men later, they meet the same blind loyalty. As a prince, Richard is already well-positioned for leadership and power, so his amorality, irresistibility, and lack of conscience make him a very dangerous man.Indeed, Harry is a willing participant in the arrest of Edward V's household officers at Northampton and Stony Stratford, and in the execution of William Hastings and the arrest of Edward V's friends in the Tower, taking Richard's word for it that they are guilty. He does even more, relating to Richard a casual conversation touching upon Edward IV's dalliance and promise of marriage to Eleanor Butler that Richard immediately seizes as a pretext for claiming the throne himself. Harry then does everything he can to make it happen. He is so totally Richard's that his wife Kate becomes just another Woodville to him, and therefore an object of contempt.One chilling characteristic of Richard is his superficial aim to please his victims, even as he considers how to exploit them for his own self-interest. Although he makes an effort to please young King Edward V through gestures that mean little to him and cost him little personally (such as bowing lowly and rewarding Edward's favorite chaplain), Richard's motivation is to hide his true intent under outward affectations of agreeableness. This is no better illustrated than by Richard's description to Harry of the deaths of Edward V and his brother. Richard seems to be self-congratulatory when he tells Harry how happy he had made the boys beforehand (with a promise of a trip to the North and the serving of their favorite meal) and what means he took to ensure that their deaths were painless. This becomes the point at which Harry breaks with Richard, although Richard does not know this at the time.If Harry has overlooked Richard's faults, he has no trouble seeing Edward IV's, and his youthful, impudent, and infuriating questioning of Edward's policies earn him Edward's anger more than once. This is curious, because the humanity of Edward, and of Hastings, as well, is evident to Kate, who is a finer judge of character than her husband, and who defends both of them (despite their sexual promiscuity), recognizing their better natures.I was particularly moved by Higginbotham's description of the arrest of Anthony Woodville at Northampton. His desperate protestations of innocence have the ring of sincerity, and one can't help but feel pain over his wrongful imprisonment. One is equally moved by her description of Harry's visit to the imprisoned Edward V and young Richard. We experience the frustration and anger of both boys as they confront one of the men responsible for their fallen fortunes. Edward's bitter and sarcastic comments and young Richard's accusations stir us as they stirred Harry, who can't help but feel guilty for his contribution to their misery. This eventually moves him to approach Richard with the suggestion that the boys be sent to his estates in Brecon, where there will be less restrictions upon them. This is when he discovers that he is too late, that both boys have been killed on Richard's orders.Higginbotham is to be congratulated for writing historical fiction that is scrupulously true to the contemporary sources. Of special interest is her postscript, in which she defers to the complexity of the issues surrounding the Yorkist period and explains why she has taken the perspective that she has in her novel. It is refreshing to see such honesty from a writer of a novel set in a period that is often misconstrued by authors who wish to use fiction as a means to rewrite history.

This review was originally published on my blog at kyrackramer.comThe Stolen Crown, by Susan Higginbotham, is a very interesting fictionalized account overlaid on a very accurate timeline of historical events. The main protagonists are Catherine/Katherine Woodville Stafford (Kate) and Henry Stafford (Harry), 2nd Duke of Buckingham. Kate is the youngest sister of Henry IV's wife Elizabeth Woodville and thus aunt to the Princes in the Tower. Harry is a good friend and ardent supporter of Richard III, and was a "kingmaker" during Richard's rise to power. However, Harry mysteriously left Richard after he became king and made an unsuccessful attempt to help Henry Tudor invade England to uncrown the monarch whom he had once backed to the hilt. Harry was executed, but a little less than two years later Henry Tudor invaded England again in the summer of 1485 and defeated Richard III to become Henry VII and the founder of the Tudor Dynasty. Kate then married Henry VII's uncle, Jasper Tudor.Y'all, I am in grave danger of turning this blog into the Susan Higginbotham fan club! Once again she took historical facts (which she was hella accurate about, unlike some) and grafted a plausible tale of the motivations, personalities, and feelings behind those events. Seriously, she rocks.Although the book is focused on Harry and Kate and their relationship and lives, the rise and fall of Richard III had such a starring role in their personal play that the book is also about that monarch. Harry loves Richard for these good qualities. Kate hates Richard as a long-standing enemy of her sister. Higginbotham is such a good writer and made me so attached to Harry and Kate that about half way through the book I was dreading the ending, because happy it could not be. Nonetheless, it is her exploration of Richard III that made the strongest impression.I think part of the reason I like her books so much is that she draws the progression of motivations in the same manner I like to do. She makes humans complex, with irrational rationalizations as well as the superstitions and beliefs common to their era. She understands that no one is either pure villain or pure saint. Good men can commit foul acts because they honestly think it is the right thing to do for the "greater good". Bad men can do good things for the people they love. Loyalty, love, hope, hate ... all of these emotions can be felt simultaneously about the same thing or the same person. Humans are odd that way.Hitler is synonymous with evil, but he was good to his dogs. Gandhi is synonymous with peace, but he slept naked with his grandniece to test his celibacy, and even though he didn't molest her I think we can admit that it was creepy and the wrong thing to do to a young woman who idolized him. Andrew Jackson displaced and murdered the Cherokee as part of an attempt to destroy all Native American peoples, but he loved his wife. Charles Dickinson was one of the greatest social reformers ever, but he treated his wife and kids like crap.Higginbotham highlights the inherent contradictions of the human soul in her narratives. She knows there are very few humans who can resist "the ends justify the means" rationalizations so she utilizes that trait to present three dimensional characters of historical figures, not characterizations of paragons or devils. She does this particularly well with Richard III, who should have won an Oscar for "Best Supporting Actor" in this novel. Members of the Richard III Society and other fans of this king argue that because his laws were just and he was an excellent ruler and a man of good works then QED he could NOT have orchestrated the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Higginbotham's novel elucidates how this opinion ignores the fact that Richard ordered the surreptitious judicial murders of Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey, the uncle and older half-brother of Edward V, on trumped up charges. Neither does she gloss over the fact that the loyal friend and ardent defender of Edward IV and his son Edward V, Baron Hastings, was not even given a trial by the Richard (who was then the Lord Protector of the Edward V and his little brother) before he was beheaded. Why such haste to behead Hastings and why do it so close to the date when Richard would find "evidence" that the boys were illegitimate? And why, when faced with rebellion and dissatisfaction from his subjects, did Richard III not bring the now-bastardized Princes out in public to prove he hadn't murdered them?Richard had many good points as King, but that doesn't mean he wasn't in the "to make an omelet you gotta break some eggs" school of statecraft.As another modern example, I am a big fan of Franklin D. Roosevelt. I think FDR was one of the best presidents America has ever had. Nevertheless, FDR authorized the despicable "War Relocation Camps" where more than 100,000 Japanese Americans were imprisoned after Pearl Harbor, and that can never be excused. Those who make omelets often wind up with historical egg on their faces.Higginbotham also avoids the demonization of Richard III, which Henry Tudor instigated after his triumph on Bosworth Field. Higginbotham portrays Richard as a noble idealist, but one who despised the Woodville family as upstarts (which they were) and felt that no one would do as good a job at ruling England as himself. You actively felt sorry for him in some chapters, and despised him in others. That's why the book feels so real; it has real people in it as opposed to stick figures with real names.The book was so well-written that could simultaneously sympathize with Harry for loving Richard, and with Kate for hating him. That is one of the best forms of story-telling, in my opinion.

I am giving it 3 stars because the writing itself flowed well. Otherwise it would have been two. The author has a blog where she accuses people who do not espouse her historical views of 'cherry picking.' This seems hypocritical as she does just that. She loves the Woodvilles and in this they are saintly to the point of sickly. I think I hate them even more as 'good guys' than as grasping villains, lol.They are so 'good' even the marriage of 20-something year old brother John to a 60-something widow is made out to be from pure motives--they LIKED each other's company according to SH, it wasn't about getting the old lady's lands/money. Of course no Woodville would do such a thing...that is only Evil!Richard, of course. Richard III here, although not quite Shakespearean, is rather odd, not just in personality, which seems to shift from fairly normal to suddenly blase bad, but also his speech, calling Buckingham 'old man' as some kind of friendly term, making him sound like a cliche Old Etonian or something. Maybe that was the intent; an American's idea of what sounds 'amusing' in regards to English speech. A bit mystifying to English people. Buckingham himself is made so naieve it is hard to swallow. I always thought he might be a bit thick, but thick and full of pride, which made him dangerous,not a bit of a wet simpleton. And certainly not very sweet--after all, this is the man whose own grandmother wrote in her will that he was not to interfere with the proving of it, so obviously she thought he might. And of course also the man who is names as the murderer of the 'Princes in the Tower' in no less than 5 documents.

The Stolen Crown was another good read from Susan Higginbotham for me, but I didn't quite get into it as much as The Queen of Last Hopes. It starts promisingly with exciting opening scenes that immediately grabbed my attention and made me want to keep reading, but it does tails off in the middle - that is, it's well-written, but the story kind of treads water for a while in the middle whilst Katherine Woodville and Henry Stafford grow up, and you just know we're all waiting for Richard III to come along.Higginbotham admits in her author's note that very little is known about Buckingham and his motives, so I enjoyed reading about a plausible recreation of his what might have happened. We'll never really know, of course. I kind of felt that the marriage between Katherine and Henry depicted here seemed the same as the other marriages in medieval historical fiction - rocky starts, solidifying as they get to know each other. Having read a lot of medieval fiction recently, I've noticed that this sort of marriage seems to crop up a lot.One thing I'm not sure was a decision that worked was telling the story from the perspective of Katherine and Henry. It was definitely interesting to get the perspective of characters who we don't often get to know very well in wars of the roses fiction because they're not the main players... but because they are often secondary figures in events, they're not always present for key events, or aware of what's going on. That works for me as a reader who already knows the wars of the roses well and so I can gain novelty and enjoyment from reading the same tale again from this fresh new angle, but for other readers it may be different. It can restrict the scope of the story, and I couldn't help wishing that there was more of the key players in The Stolen Crown - I was curious how Higginbotham would portray Edward IV, Richard III, Elizabeth Woodville, Warwick, George Plantagenet and so on, but I wanted more of them than I got, so to speak.

If you believe that the way to write historical fiction is to interpose spadesful of pedantic lecture between characters with cartloads of quasi-historical background from narrator to reader direct, then this is the writer for you. Tortuous phrasing and lumpy prose do not help matters. The narrator actually confesses to the reader in Ch.8 that he has probably caused confusion: yes, well here indeed is one very confused reader! All goes to pad out an already-insubstantial storyline. On this showing Susan Higginbotham is no Philippa Gregory, still less a Sharon Penman.

I hadn't realised how truly complicated this fairly short period of English history was. Considering the list of the kings of England and their queens, Elizabeth Woodville did seem an anomaly, I mean where did she come from? This books clears that up: she was beautiful and gentle, and Edward IV fell for her. And Edward himself, and the doubts as to his 'provenance' - which might well have been the reason his brother Richard felt entitled to grab for the throne upon his untimely death.It was quite a twist to get the story from the viewpoint of two other royals. But well over half way through the book, I made a big mistake. I googled Richard III's story of how he achieved his coup, and who his backers were, and the mess that ensued after he became king. So, through no mistake of the author, I just couldn't face reading anymore as the fate of someone I'd come to really like and respect slowly unwound. Won't be doing that again when I read my next historical novel.

I have read these two books in fairly quick succession and they deal with the same period and the same topic, the Wars of the Roses. Of the two I prefer Stolen Crown. Although both are historical novels, The White Queen, an excellent book too, goes into too much witchcraft whereas Stolen Crown is more factual and covers a period extending to Henry VII. I also prefer the style of writing. There is a sequal to The White Queen called The Red Queen which would presumably cover this later period too but I downloaded a sample and it was clear that it was all going to be about witches too so I never bought it.If you want a very enjoyable account of the late 15th Century, all its intrigues and betrayals, executions and adulteries, awful civil war with a fair degree of historical accuracy read Stolen Crown.