Incorrect information in a book review in the latest Bulletin

This is always the problem with writing historical fiction isn't it? The emphasis should be on the word fiction, but the more knowledge of the period it displays, the more people want to treat it as fact and then pull it to bits. Write a pure fantasy with Morton and MB casting spells (see later review) and that's allowed. I don't actually think it's as bad as you think though; there's praise for how well-written it is. But I understand your hurt feelings at what is an unjustified criticism - how many novels of Richard have a child Anne doting on him as does your 14 year old in 1483? I personally don't want to think Richard was a saint; if I did I'd joint the Henry VI Society. So keep up the good work! H (who hasn't read your book yet but it's on the shelf for dark nights when my day job dries up).

On Wednesday, 10 September 2014, 16:19, "eileenbates147@... []" <> wrote:


Just read the review Sandra...I see Wiki has the date of Cicely's birth as 20 March 1469..so that would make her yes 16 at the time your book covers...oh that's naughty isn't it...if you are going to give someone's book a bad review at least get your facts straight. Eileen

Thomas More wrote fiction..and they made him a saint...Eileen

I'm posting this to draw attention to a considerable error in the review of my book, Cicely's King Richard, in the latest Bulletin. The review is not favourable, but then I did not expect it to be, but it contains the statement that Cicely was only 14 at the time of her relationship with Richard. I know the thought of this relationship offends many, but I am more offended by the mentioning of 14 as her age. She is not 14 when the relationship commences, only at the opening of the story itself in April 1483. Anything that takes place with Richard is in June 1485, after she is 16. I do not want to argue about the rights and wrongs of the book itself, because I have said all I think I should in that respect, but I am really taken aback that the reviewer in the Bulletin should make such an error. Time and again there is this insistence on her only being 14, and in most instances it is because the person concerned has only read the blurb, and leapt to conclusions. I do not say that is what has happened this time, but the error is there nevertheless. So please know that my book is many things, but does not promote what we today regard as child sex. Sandra =^..^=

There you go Sandra! Eileen, I love you!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Incorrect information in a book review in the latest Bulletin

Thomas More wrote fiction..and they made him a saint...Eileen

Jess, you will love them!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:03 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Incorrect information in a book review in the latest Bulletin

I really enjoyed your book, Sandra.
It was hard to suspend disbelief and imagine Richard in those circumstances, but your writing was convincing and addictive and I can't wait to read the next one.

Jess

From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []
Sent: 10/09/2014 13:26
To:
Subject: Incorrect information in a book review in the latest Bulletin

I'm posting this to draw attention to a considerable error in the review of my book, Cicely's King Richard, in the latest Bulletin. The review is not favourable, but then I did not expect it to be, but it contains the statement that Cicely was only 14 at the time of her relationship with Richard. I know the thought of this relationship offends many, but I am more offended by the mentioning of 14 as her age. She is not 14 when the relationship commences, only at the opening of the story itself in April 1483. Anything that takes place with Richard is in June 1485, after she is 16. I do not want to argue about the rights and wrongs of the book itself, because I have said all I think I should in that respect, but I am really taken aback that the reviewer in the Bulletin should make such an error. Time and again there is this insistence on her only being 14, and in most instances it is because the person concerned has only read the blurb, and leapt to conclusions. I do not say that is what has happened this time, but the error is there nevertheless. So please know that my book is many things, but does not promote what we today regard as child sex.

Sandra

=^..^=

Oh I wouldn't go down that route it I were you Sandra...it can't exactly be a barrel of laughs can it...it usual ends up with getting executed in some excruciating painful way too,,,Eileen

When Anne was 14, RIchard was 17-18. That's not an inconceivable kind of crush either in the C15th or today.

Cecily's 16 to Richard's 32 is very very different, imo. And he was her uncle.

Let me understand: Sandra Heath Wilson writes an entire book of undocumented slanderous crap on a person that cannot defend himself (and she does the same with Henry VII in the following book by the way) but she is splitting hairs that Cicely was 14 at the beginning of the book, not when the fiction has her end up in bed with her uncle because by then she would be 16 so it would be perfectly acceptable?

Well, I do spouse Ms Wilson's request to amend the error in the next bulletin. Accuracy for accuracy, let's publish Cecily's whole wiki profile, from which I derive the following information

Cecily of York, Viscountess Welles (20 March 1469  24 August 1507) was an English Princess and the third, but eventual second surviving, daughter of Edward IV.
Cecily was married to a Ralph Scrope of Upsall, a younger brother of Thomas Scrope, 6th Baron Scrope of Masham, and a supporter of Richard, but the marriage was annulled on the accession of her future brother-in-law, Henry Tudor, as King Henry VII of England. Many published works fail to note this earlier, nullified, marriage.

Let me understand: Sandra Heath Wilson writes an entire book of undocumented slanderous crap on a person that cannot defend himself (and she does the same with Henry VII in the following book by the way) but she is splitting hairs that Cicely was 14 at the beginning of the book, not when the fiction has her end up in bed with her uncle because by then she would be 16 so it would be perfectly acceptable?

Well, I do spouse Ms Wilson's request to amend the error in the next bulletin. Accuracy for accuracy, let's publish Cecily's whole wiki profile, from which I derive the following information

Cecily of York, Viscountess Welles (20 March 1469  24 August 1507) was an English Princess and the third, but eventual second surviving, daughter of Edward IV.
Cecily was married to a Ralph Scrope of Upsall, a younger brother of Thomas Scrope, 6th Baron Scrope of Masham, and a supporter of Richard, but the marriage was annulled on the accession of her future brother-in-law, Henry Tudor, as King Henry VII of England. Many published works fail to note this earlier, nullified, marriage.

Let me understand: Sandra Heath Wilson writes an entire book of undocumented slanderous crap on a person that cannot defend himself (and she does the same with Henry VII in the following book by the way) but she is splitting hairs that Cicely was 14 at the beginning of the book, not when the fiction has her end up in bed with her uncle because by then she would be 16 so it would be perfectly acceptable?

Well, I do spouse Ms Wilson's request to amend the error in the next bulletin. Accuracy for accuracy, let's publish Cecily's whole wiki profile, from which I derive the following information

Cecily of York, Viscountess Welles (20 March 1469  24 August 1507) was an English Princess and the third, but eventual second surviving, daughter of Edward IV.
Cecily was married to a Ralph Scrope of Upsall, a younger brother of Thomas Scrope, 6th Baron Scrope of Masham, and a supporter of Richard, but the marriage was annulled on the accession of her future brother-in-law, Henry Tudor, as King Henry VII of England. Many published works fail to note this earlier, nullified, marriage.