Blog Posts

Roger L'Estrange

11/29/2014

Hunstanton Hall. The 14th century gatehouse with solar over is in the centre in red brick. Behind it, to form a quadrangle, would have been the old medieval hall which burnt down in 1850.

Some years ago, as I walked in Old Hunstanton towards Ringstead Downs, past the church and the duck pond, and through the gates at the end marked 'PRIVATE' (which you are allowed to do on a Thursday by ancient custom) I came across an old manor house, Hunstanton Hall. Until that moment I had not known of its existence, but one look at it told me that it was largely 17th century, and closer inspection revealed a date on the drainpipes of 1623. Furthermore, it boasted a moat with a bridge over. My imagination suddenly went into overdrive. I could see Cavaliers in their big hats, ostrich feather blowing in the wind, trotting over that bridge. My walking companion that day, a local lady, told me that the L'Estranges had built it and lived there once. A fire had destroyed the original old hall in 1850, but a 14th century gatehouse was still there. Now it had been divided up and belonged to various owners. Many of the outbuildings, like the stables and the bakery had been turned into cottages, some were holiday homes.

In Hunstanton the name L'Estrange or Le Strange, which is the Victorian spelling, is well known. It was Henry Styleman Le Strange who built the Victorian seaside resort town of [new] Hunstanton just a mile or so along the coast, making the original Hunstanton end up with the prefix 'Old'. We Have the Le Strange hotel, and Le Strange terrace. Le Strange owned the mussel beds just off the beach, as a sign there proclaims. Now intrigued, I decided to go digging in the library.

What I discovered was the amazing story of the family during the Civil War, how Sir Hamon L'Estrange, the lord of the manor, managed to instigate a siege of the nearby town of King's Lynn by the Parliamentary army. That was interesting enough, but it was the youngest son of Sir Hamon, Roger, who caught my attention.

It turned out that not only was Roger (at twenty-seven) fighting with his father during the siege, but he also tried to re-take King's Lynn for the King later. After a spell in exile on the continent with other Cavaliers, he returned to England and began a career as a pamphleteer promoting the restoration of the monarchy and attacking Commonwealth writers, most notably, John Milton and his Paradise Lost. He was granted the position of Surveyor of the Imprimery (Printing Press) and then Licencer of the Press from which position he could act as a censor, which he did with a will, taking the position of confirmed Royalist and Anglican. He was close to Charles II, and James II who gave him a knighthood. He was involved in the Titus Oates affair, and at one time was so hated by the people of London that they burnt him in effigy! At one stage he went into exile again until the heat cooled.

Personally, he was 'a man of good wit and a fancy luxuriant, and of an enterprising nature' according to Edward Hyde, the first Earl of Clarendon. Witty he certainly was, as his phenomenal output of writing show us. Often sarcastic, sometimes downright caustic, and he never pulled his punches.

If you are interested you can find some of his works on Amazon and his famous quotes by Googling his name.

He died of a stroke at the age of eighty-nine.

Sir Hamon L'Estrange, once governor of King's Lynn during the Civil War, and Roger's father.

Sir Roger L'Estrange by Michael Wright, about 1680

FOR THE KING - Roger L'Estrange and the Siege of King's Lynn is now available Print or Kindle at Amazon. CLICK HERE TO ORDER

1 Comment

THE SIEGE OF KING'S LYNN

10/7/2014

3 Comments

Hunstanton Hall, home of the L'Estranges

In 1643, near the start of the English Civil War, East Anglia was in the control of Parliament by means of the Eastern Association of counties. Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire were some of the richest counties in the country and the Association intended to raise money and troops from taxes imposed on the landowners. It had the effect of uniting the Parliamentarians and isolating the Royalists who refused to pay the tax or 'ship money'.

King's Lynn in Norfolk, at the mouth of the River Great Ouse, had a strategic position. Not only was it a thriving busy port, with a road running straight down to London, but the topography of the land meant that it was the only port on the north Norfolk coast until Great Yarmouth over the eastern side of the county. It was also 'out on a limb'. On the west was the river; fifteen miles north was open sea; to the east, the nearest important town, the city of Norwich, was fifty miles away.

The Royalists wanted King's Lynn in their hands. Queen Henrietta, Charles I's wife had gone to Holland in an attempt to find arms and men to support the King's cause. King's Lynn was the ideal port to get them into Britain.

Furthermore, because of King's Lynn's position, if the Royalists held the town, the way south to London and therefore victory, was in their grasp.

Accordingly in 1643 Sir Hamon L'Estrange of Hunstanton (fifteen miles north on the corner of Norfolk on the coast) managed to win enough support in King's Lynn's council to become governor of the town. Nevertheless, he bided his time, allowing the Parliamentarians to strengthen the town's defences.

In August 1643 Sir Hamon, his two sons Roger and Sir Nicholas, and a number of other prominent Royalist councillors were arrested. It was time for the people of Lynn to decide which side they were on. The townspeople let their voices be heard as they cried 'FOR THE KING!' in the Tuesday Market Place.

In short order, The Earl of Manchester, major-general of the Parliamentary forces, together with none other than Oliver Cromwell, laid siege to the town with 18,000 troops sitting down outside Lynn. Some to the East and Cromwell with Captain Poe and their troops were in what is now called West Lynn, then called Old Lynn, across the river Ouse, directly opposite King's Lynn. From here they could bombard the town, which they did, destroying houses in the Tuesday Market Place and even putting a cannonball through the transept window of St. Margaret's Church in the Saturday Market Place during Sunday worship.

Sir Hamon L'Estrange had been promised help from Lord Newcastle, a general in the King's Army. He was currently in Lincolnshire, and it would have been a simple trip across the Wash to come to Lynn's aid. Or he could have come by land before Manchester's troops became so many. If he had done so, and Lynn had become secure, it would have been a straight march to London, the King would have been victorious, and the war would have been over in months. Instead, he chose not to go to Lynn, but to Hull instead, and he was not victorious there. As a result the war dragged on for years with the King being beheaded in January 1649.

Lynn fell in September 1643 to the Parliamentarians.

Part of the Town's defensive wall

Trinity Guildhall used as Town Hall in 17th century and today

FOR THE KING Roger L'Estrange and the Siege of King's Lynn
Available in Print and Kindle format
CLICK HERE TO BUY

Out now:
GENTLEMAN OF FORTUNE The Adventures of Bartholomew Roberts, Pirate
KINDLE AND PAPERBACK
US, UK, Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Brazil, Spain, India, Mexico
through Amazon (click to buy)
ONE SMALL CANDLE The Story of William Bradford and the Pilgrim Fathers
KINDLE AND PAPERBACK
US, UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Brazil, Spain, India, Mexico
through Amazon (click to buy)

3 Comments

Pirates - Action!

8/9/2014

0 Comments

Pirates wanted an easy life. Contrary to popular opinion they were not warlike cut-throats intent on murder and mayhem. Well, not all of them! When they hoisted the black flag or 'jolly roger' the message was 'Surrender and we will give quarter. If not, we spare none.' And they usually kept their word. As a result, merchant ships usually 'struck their colours' that is, they lowered the flags on their masts in surrender. After all, unless the master of the merchant was actually the owner and therefore had a vested interest in the cargo, his life and ship were not more valuable than his life.

However, at times some merchant vessels tried rashly either to outrun them, or to stand and fight. This put the pirates to a good deal of trouble and being basically lazy, they didn't want it. If they'd wanted danger and hard work, they'd have stayed on the merchant vessels from which they were recruited! However, in the eighteenth century many seamen on merchant vessels had likely been in the royal navy. The war of the Spanish Succession saw a great many English sailors in action, but when it ended in 1713 vast numbers of naval seamen found themselves out of work. Finding berths on merchant ships and then recruited by the pirates they were battle-trained and experienced.

When it came to battle the pirates had many advantages over the merchant ships. In the first place, they were faster. A captain would deliberately choose a fast ship and have rigging and sails altered if necessary. A pirate ship had flush decks. As an ordinary merchant vessel, which they all were, it would perhaps have had a raised fore deck and also a raised deck aft. Once a pirate captain decided to use the ship for himself, he would have the decks made flush so as not to hamper the easy movement of men in times of battle. He would also put more guns on her, and mount man-slaughtering swivels on the bow gunwales and also on the stern too. Swivels were small cannon able to move in all directions, and filled with murderous grapeshot. If the aim was right, a swivel could mow down a crew, tear holes in the sails and even bring down a mast.

When the order to beat to action came from the captain, the drummers (yes, pirates had musicians including fiddlers, pipers and drummers on board!) would sound the same drum roll as a naval vessel to summon everyone to their stations and they would clear for action. Since the gun deck was also the mess-deck, where the pirates slept and ate and relaxed, this meant stowing everything away to leave the space free for firing the guns. Someone threw sand on the decks to stop the men from slipping in the blood of those unfortunate enough to get themselves injured or killed. Others brought water, others gunpowder charges (powder tied up in a cloth bag), and of course the cannon balls.

Each man knew what job he had to do. The sailing crew sailed the ship, and was under the control of the sailing master, who usually had the helm. The gunners were also in crews, with a master-gunner over them. Often two, one for each 'watch'. The captain co-ordinated it all. If any man failed to obey the captain in times of action, or deserted his post, he would later be shot by firing squad. Just like on a man-of-war.

Each gun had its own crew of four to six men, and they covered their ears with wadding tied in place. No-one wanted burst eardrums. To fire a gun, they needed first to cover the air vent lest a spark ignite the new charge. Next they inserted a wet sponge on a stick into the muzzle to get rid of any residual sparks, and to cool down the barrel from the previous firing. Failure to do this could result in the charge exploding as it was loaded, killing the men or starting a fire. Then the charge (remember the gunpowder in the bag) was put into the muzzle and rammed down to the end with a ramrod, and the cannonball followed. Uncovering the air vent, they put in a fuse far enough so that it touched the charge. All this took two minutes on the Victory, Nelson's flagship.

Now they could 'run out the gun', usually on that command, that is, pull on the ropes which held it so that it rolled forward until the muzzle was protruding from the gunports in the ship's side. If they could aim it, they would do that now, but the 'aim' really was the domain of the captain, and this was where his skill lay. When the captain yelled 'Fire!' and the gun captains repeated it, someone would light the fuse and then they would all stand well back. The gun's recoil could easily kill a man. The fuse would take two seconds to burn down and fire the gun. Meantime the ship would be rolling in the sea, pitching in the waves. With the wrong pitch of the sea, the gunfire would be useless. The Captain's job was to judge the pitch and roll of the ship and the timing from the word 'fire!' to the actual blast, and at the same time have the sailing master manoeuvre the ship into position.

The aim of firing on a ship was, of course, to disable a ship, or cause enough damage that the captain would 'yield'. If they could put enough holes in the enemy ship's side, coming in close and firing all the cannons on the side closest to the enemy in a broadside, they might well achieve that aim. A broadside was not all the guns firing at once - the resulting explosion would shake their own ship apart! So they fired them one after the other down the whole length of the ship. Another manoeuvre would be to pass behind the enemy ship at right angles to her with a view to putting at least one shot through the stern windows. As the cannonball tore through the length of the ship on the gun deck it would knock out all the guns and cause carnage among the men. Game over.

Once the ship surrendered, or if they could get in close enough, it would be grappling irons and the order to 'Board!' or 'Boarders away.' The quartermaster was in charge of the prize ship, and he would put a prize crew on board and take it in convoy with the pirate ship to the nearest haven where they could loot it in peace. The prisoners were usually released without harm, although not in all circumstances. Crews were offered the option of joining the pirates, but usually not forced. They formed an orderly queue!

The pirates had surgeons on board to deal with the wounded; Roberts had a surgeon on each of his ships.

And if that sound like a naval battle, well, in effect, that's exactly what it was.

GENTLEMAN OF FORTUNE The Adventures of Bartholomew Roberts, Pirate is out now through Amazon.
KINDLE AND PAPERBACK

ONE SMALL CANDLE The Story of William Bradford and the Pilgrim Fathers
KINDLE AND PAPERBACK

0 Comments

HISTORICAL RESEARCH PART 2 – THE PILGRIM FATHERS

8/3/2014

1 Comment

Lists! Endless lists! That’s what historical research is all about! And the bigger the cast of characters, the more lists there seem to be.

While researching ONE SMALL CANDLE The Story of William Bradford and the Pilgrim Fathers, I discovered that within the group they were nearly all related by a system of marriage and re-marriage. This created a major research headache for me. I had lists on my walls of family trees with dates and offspring, because the children were often inter-related. I had to remember whose sister was whose wife. I also had to know where they came from, and at what point they joined the story

To begin with in 1608 the Pilgrims were a congregation of Separatists numbering 125 in Scrooby, a village situated at the point where Nottinghamshire met Yorkshire and the Lincolnshire town of Gainsborough was just ten miles east. Their ‘ruling elder’ was Richard Clifton, and John Robinson and William Brewster were also elders. Young William Bradford was in this congregation. Another congregation of Separatists was located in Gainsborough under the pastorship of John Smith.

In the early years of the 17th century, the religious persecution of Separatists was so bad that they lived in constant fear of being arrested, and others of their persuasion in London had been hanged at Tyburn. As a result, they decided to leave England for Holland, which country, unlike England, allowed freedom of worship. The congregation in Gainsborough were the first to move to Holland and they settled in Amsterdam. The Scrooby congregation followed in dribs and drabs in 1607-9 and at first joined themselves to John Smith’s group.

However, there was a huge difference of opinion between the Scrooby elders and John Smith’s idea of scriptural truth, so the Scrooby contingent attached themselves to yet another group of Separatists in Amsterdam called the Ancient Brethren. They did not agree with them either, and there was trouble brewing there when one of the elders was accused of child molestation. In short order, they decamped again and moved to Leyden to form their own group under the leadership of John Robinson, taking quite a few of the Ancient Brethren with them.

By this time, they had mixed with three hundred or more other Separatists. William Bradford later married Dorothy May in1613 whom he had met in Amsterdam, and their son Jonathan was born in 1615. Years later William Bradford married Alice Carpenter in Plymouth, NE, and they too first met in Amsterdam.

The Carpenter family, under the head Alexander, were Separatists from Somerset. After being associated with the second congregation in Amsterdam, they too moved to Leyden. Alice Carpenter (1590-1670) first married Edward Southworth, and had two sons by him, Constant (1615-1679) and Thomas (1616-1669). Her sister Agnes (d. c. 1615) married Samuel Fuller (d.1633) , while another sister, Julianna, married George Morton in 1612 and Manasseh Kempton in 1627 in New England, and Priscilla Carpenter married William Wright (1588-1633 m. in New England in 1627).

The Whites were another large family. Catherine, born 1580 married George Leggatt first, and John Carver secondly (before they ever left England.) The Carvers were passengers on the Mayflower and John became the first governor of the Plymouth Colony. Sadly he died in 1621, and William Bradford became the next governor. The Carvers had two children, but both died in infancy in Leyden.

Catherine’s sister Bridget White married John Robinson the ‘ruling elder’ of the Leyden congregation. John Robinson was the driving force behind the emigration to New England, although he never made the voyage. The White clan included Charles, Thomas, Roger (who married Elizabeth Wales), Edward, Jane, who married Ralph Thickens in Leyden and Frances who married Francis Jessop. Their cousin William White married Susannah Fuller, sister of Edward and Sam Fuller. When he died of the sickness in Plymouth, she married Edward Winslow in May 1621.

If you’ve lost track by this point, then perhaps you can sympathise with me. I have lists of Mayflower passengers, Speedwell passengers, Anne passengers, Little Fortune passengers. Lists of congregation members in Scrooby, in Amsterdam, in Leyden, in London (before they left for America), who died in the sickness of 1620-21, who survived the sickness. You get the picture.

These days, all these lists are available on the internet. In the days when I did my research, there was no internet! Or if there was, I had not discovered it yet. It took me two years to write ONE SMALL CANDLE and I tried to record the events are as accurately as possible. However, my aim was not to make a dry history book. I wanted to discover what drove these people to such desperate lengths, what life must have been like for them.

Within historical information there is always room for interpretation. From the snippets of information available I had to devise personalities for the characters, understand their personal achievements or tragedies. I had to fabricate some conversation—although in some cases fabrication was unnecessary.

ONE SMALL CANDLE is not intended to be a definitive history book. It is intended to give an overall picture of the events, to bring the people to life.

I hope you enjoy it.

1 Comment

How much research should be done for historical fiction? Can enough ever be done?

7/25/2014

6 Comments

I was asked this question on Twitter, and it made me think, how do you go about research for historical novels? Where do you start? So I thought about the process I went through

With Gentleman of Fortune, I started with an idea - I wanted to know about pirates. So off I went to the local library and looked up books on Pirates. Here I came across a book by a Captain Charles Johnson, called 'A General History of the . . . Pirates.' It turns out many scholars think Captain Johnson is actually Daniel Defoe, so it was written during the Golden Age of Piracy. Here I found the subject I wanted to write about: Bartholomew Roberts. I had found my story.

Now for the research proper, because, let's face it, my knowledge of 18th century pirates was limited to the films of the likes of Errol Flynn's Captain Blood! David Cordingly was helpful here. He has written many books on piracy. The first one I came across, Life Among The Pirates had so much information. My poor husband was inundated with facts: 'Did you know, pirates did not usually make people walk the plank?' 'Did you know pirates were not all cut-throats?' 'Oh - the black flag means: surrender and we will give quarter; if not we spare none. While the red flag means: a fight to the death; no quarter.' I think he was heartily sick of it by the time I'd finished! The information was priceless and endless! I will never be able to thank David Cordingly enough! I think I read every book he wrote on the subject of pirates!

At the end of books like David Cordingly's there is a wonderful thing called a Bibliography. For the uninitiated, the Bibliography is where the writer found his information - some of it source material. For example, here I was directed to John Atkins' Journal. He was the surgeon on HMS Swallow which chased Roberts up and down the West African Coast. The public lending library was absolutely invaluable. They found all sorts of books for me at a minimal cost. Those that I thought were the most valuable to me, I sought out and purchased if they were available. Others I had to photocopy because they were not available, as in too old, or out of print.

The research continued. Note-taking and planning was now at its height. The pirates have a cast of hundreds. But the different members of the crew joined from other ships at different times. And I had to know who and when. All their names were documented, as were their ages and places of origin, and from which ship they joined and what date that ship was captured. Which ship of the pirate fleet did they sail on? (There were three at the end). I had lists all around my walls. The same was true, incidentally, of the Pilgrims in One Small Candle. Another cast of hundreds, and they intermarried. I had to know which person belonged to which family, which family they had married into, who were their siblings, and their children, who did their children marry, and when the first spouse died and they remarried, who were the step children who were married to whom . . . Well, it was my recurring nightmare that I'd missed a connection somewhere! I had family trees pinned to my office walls for that one as well!

On top of all that, I needed to know how to sail an 18th century ship, how to fire a cannon, a pistol, how to navigate, how did pistols work, what was it like in battle, what did they wear, eat, believe, even how did they go to the toilet! What were the main events in history at the time? With the pirates there had been the War of the Spanish Succession, and the Treaty of Utrecht had brought peace, which had a bearing on the story. What was the law? And what about the myriad places the pirates visited? I could go on and on. Nowadays, much of this information is available on-line but when I wrote Gentleman of Fortune, I did not have a computer, and on-line had hardly registered in the public consciousness.

Well, while doing all this research, I was writing the story. On the editing, it was re-checking details. Had I got this date right? Or what was the timing of that event? And the next edit was the same. In fact I did not stop checking details until I actually published the book.

It is the same process for all my books. Hard work? Yes. Worth it? Definitely.

So in answer to the question from my Twitter follower: 'How much research should be done for historical fiction? Can enough ever been done?' I think the answer has to be - Yes, and No. Yes, you research until you are satisfied. But No because you will still keep finding out about the subject twenty years on!

GENTLEMAN OF FORTUNE, The Adventures of Bartholomew Robert, Pirate is published in Print and Kindle version

Available in
US, UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Brazil, Spain, India, Mexico
through Amazon (click to buy)

ONE SMALL CANDLE The Story of William Bradford and the Pilgrim Fathers is out now on Amazon, Print and kindle version

Available in
US, UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Brazil, Spain, India, Mexico
through Amazon (click to buy)

COMING SOON:

FOR THE KING, A story of Roger L'Estrange and the English Civil War

6 Comments

Why the english civil war?

5/24/2014

0 Comments

What turns a nation against itself, man against his neighbour, friends becoming enemies?

Religion, that's what.

Well, that's the easy answer, but in actual fact the situation in Britain in the 17th century was far more complex. While religion played the leading role, politics, money and power all contributed to the general unrest that led to the war.

So what started it?

For years King Charles (I) had resented the interference of Parliament in his rule of Britain. Parliament, for their part, felt that he had too much power, and wanted to curtail that power, especially where money was concerned. But Charles could only get money if Parliament granted it to him and Parliament had no intention of giving it to him. In a huff, Charles dissolved Parliament and ruled without it.

At the same time, in Scotland religion had become a burning issue. The Reformation which had taken place in the previous century with the publication of the Bible in English resulted in some Scots separating themselves from the Church of England, which they saw as an offshoot of the Catholic Church only ruled by the King instead of the Pope. They had discerned from the Bible that there was only one priest, Jesus Christ, whereas congregations were to be ruled by overseers, or elders, (Greek: presbyteros) from which we get the word Presbyterian, rule by elders. Thus the Church of Scotland was Presbyterian, completely separate from the Church of England.

Charles's own father James (I) had been the first monarch to rule over both England (including Wales - apologies to the Welsh here) and Scotland, and Charles wanted to cement that. However, with Scotland not following in the same faith imposed on the rest of the country, he feared for unity. The Scots just had to acknowledge him not only as king, but also as head of the Church, and thereby rule by bishops - and they would not. As far as Charles was concerned, that was treason. Large numbers of Scots took the Covenant, that is they covenanted or agreed to not accept rule by bishops which they viewed as a blasphemy. As a result, Charles, insistent on their obedience, went to war in 1639-40 with the Scots, culminating in an ignominious defeat for the King in August 1640 at the battle of Newburn, just along the Tyne from Newcastle. Actually it was less of a battle, more a skirmish, where the Scots routed the English.

The King's army was allowed to leave Newburn but a subsequent treaty imposed heavy fines which impoverished him. Now he had no money to pay his troops, and besides, he thought it a good idea to keep an army, and that cost money. The only way to get it was to ask Parliament. So he re-called Parliament.

However, most of the Parliamentary members were in favour of, or had taken, the Covenant and there was no way that they were going to give the King money to raise an army that might be used against themselves. Furious, the King raised his standard at Nottingham in 1642, effectively declaring war against Parliament.

By this point it seems that most people had forgotten about rule by bishops, but took sides on whether they thought the King ruled by divine right. It wasn't just a matter of religious affiliation. Some who were Calvinistic in their thinking, and thus really Puritans, took the side of the King. Catholics took the King's part too, as well as those who were staunchly Church of England. As the war progressed however, the Puritans had the upper hand in Parliament until just about the whole of both the houses of Commons and Lords were Puritan.

The Parliamentarians felt that God was on their side, yet as soon as they had enough power, people were executed. The King's friend and advisor, the Earl of Strafford was an early casualty. Anyone could be executed as a traitor, just by fighting on the other side, although the official definition was one who had changed sides (from Parliamentarian to Royalist, of course, not the other way around!)

Parliament had control of large swathes of the country which the Royalists tried to break, but could not. Several times the King had the opportunity to march on London and if he had done so early on in the war he could have be victorious. As it was, war impoverished the nation, divided people, and cost the King his head.

And if he had never tried to impose rule by bishops?

FOR THE KING my new novel about the siege of King's Lynn during the English Civil War will be out in the autumn.

0 Comments

ONE SMALL CANDLE - A snippet

3/2/2014

1 Comment

London 1618

Sir Edwin Sandys was no stranger to the palace of Whitehall, and in particular the offices of the King’s Secretary Sir Robert Naunton. The opulence that surrounded him impressed him not a bit, and nor was he intimidated by Sir Robert, who looked up as the servant announced Sir Edwin, and beckoned him in.

Sir Edwin bowed as they walked towards each other, and Sir Robert offered his hand.

‘You are well come, Sir Edwin.’

‘I trust you are well, Sir Robert?’ Sir Edwin said, taking his hand. He and Sir Robert were old acquaintances, bordering on friendship.

‘Fairish, sir, fairish. To what do we owe the pleasure of this visit?’

Sir Robert was a fine intelligent man, a Puritan sympathiser and a staunch Protestant. His eyes searched Sir Edwin’s for clues.

‘I come on Company business,’ Sir Edwin said. ‘A group of people have asked the Company for a patent for land in Virginia.’

Sir Robert was well aware of the need to settle land in the Americas, before the Dutch, the French or the Spanish got their hands on it. ‘Come now my dear sir. Sit down. You will take a little wine? Miles—some sack for Sir Edwin.’

The servant who had opened the door to Sir Edwin bowed and went away. Sir Edwin moved towards the blazing fire and sat down on one of the fine upholstered damask chairs.

‘So, Sir Edwin, you wish me to petition the King?’

‘How goes it with His Majesty?’

‘Considers you his greatest enemy!’

‘Does he, indeed?’ Sir Edwin retorted much impressed. ‘Well, and I hope he is not right on that! I must be one of His Majesty’s most loyal—’

Sir Robert laughed. ‘Yes, I know. So who is this group that want to go to Virginia?’

‘They call themselves Pilgrims.’

‘I’ve heard of them. Separatists from Leyden. John Robinson’s group.’

‘You know of them?’

‘Who does not?’

‘They are prepared to face the wilderness and strengthen the King’s dominion in America. They are stalwart and hardworking, men of faith. I have a letter here from Master Robinson and William Brewster, their elders, setting out seven articles which they hope will persuade the King. And I think it may well serve.’

He produced the paper from inside his doublet and gave it to Sir Robert, who perused it carefully while Sir Edwin received the wine from the servant and took a sip from a silver goblet.

‘It may well do the trick,’ Sir Robert said at length. ‘Leave it with me.’

King James was amenable, and Sir Robert was not unhopeful of success. His Majesty looked at the letter but he did not bother himself with the fine details. There was always so much to read, and his eyes tired easily. ‘So these Puritans want to go to Virginia, do they?’

‘Your Majesty did indeed suggest that we need colonists willing to brave the rigours and the hardships of living in a wilderness in order to bring the Americas under the dominion of your great Majesty.’

‘For England, eh?’

Sir Robert bowed assent.

‘And they want our protection and no doubt freedom of worship, do they?’

‘I believe that is the case, your Majesty.’

The King pursed his lips thoughtfully. ‘By what means will they exist there?’

‘I believe fishing, sire’

The King laughed. ‘God save my soul! ’Tis an honest trade. It was the apostles’ own calling!’

Sir Robert, feeling optimistic, bowed his head again. ‘Indeed, your Majesty.’

‘Well, we see no reason why not.’ He paused. ‘Freedom of worship eh? Just who are these people?’

‘They are known as Separatists, sire.’

‘Did they not quit this glorious realm to live in Holland?’

‘Indeed, your Majesty remembers well.’

‘Well, we think we should see what the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London have to say about it. Let them apply to them.’

Sir Robert could do no more than bow obsequiously, and retreat backwards from the King’s presence. But he was not pleased. He knew there was no hope of their lordships the bishops granting anything to the Separatists. They were avowed enemies.

However, he had to obey, and so he applied to the bishops. George Abbot the Archbishop of Canterbury refused point blank. He hated Puritans, and hated particularly the Separatists whom he disparagingly called Brownists. As a group they challenged his authority. Indeed, they did not recognise his authority in spiritual matters at all, so that he wondered why Sir Robert should think it necessary to ask his permission for these people. If it were left to them, he knew, he would be out of office, and reduced to the straightened circumstances of a country parson. As far as he was concerned they were the offspring of the Devil, the Antichrist, and he had no intention of giving them anything at all.

When Sir Edwin heard the news he was not in the least surprised. He had known, just as Sir Robert had known that the bishops were no friends of the Separatists. However, he was not so easily put off. It was a setback, true, but the Virginia Company were desperate for willing, foolhardy, settlers no matter who they might be, and he thought the King was being inordinately intractable in handing the matter over to the bishops. He decided to apply again, but when Cushman and Carver learned of the application, they both said No.

‘We cannot apply to the bishops. You must know, Sir Edwin, that they are our enemies.’

Sir Edwin put his head in his hand, and wrote to John Robinson and William Brewster, sending the letter with Cushman and Carver.

AVAILABLE NOW
PAPERBACK OR KINDLE
AT AMAZON

USA
UK
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
INDIA
JAPAN
SPAIN
GERMANY
FRANCE
ITALY
MEXICO
BRAZIL

1 Comment

What Made a Sailor Turn Pirate?

2/25/2014

0 Comments

Throughout history there have been pirates. But what is it that makes an ordinary God-fearing man turn pirate?

Greed? In some respects yes. But that isn't the whole answer. In the 18th century, the life of a common sailor did not have much to recommend it. Boys as young as twelve signed up for what they thought would be a life of adventure and exotic travel. Disillusionment followed pretty swiftly.

Life on board a merchant vessel was anything but fun. It was hard heavy work. Often the crew was short-handed, and if some of the crew died on the voyage, as they did from anything like malaria and yellow fever to accident, there were even less hands to work the ship. The work was dangerous. Imagine climbing to the topyard in a gale when the ship is pitching, the mast swaying almost at 160 degree angles, with only a footrope slung beneath the yard arm, and trying to cling on with no hand holds save the yard arm itself, and trying to sheet home, or tie off, a sail that is flapping in the wind! Below you, anything up to 120 ft down is the deck, or the sea. Certain death either way if you fall. On a slippery rolling deck, many were washed over the side, and a foot caught in a rope could put a man over the side also, while a rope suddenly snapping under tension could, and occasionally did, take a man's head off, or disembowel him!

The work was also hard. 'Sweating up' involved hauling on the ropes holding the sails fast to tighten them, for they worked loose. Hauling up the anchor was back-breaking work, either to turn the capstan (which was upright) or on the windlass (like a cotton-reel turned on its side). You get the picture.

The captain was an autocrat. This was his kingdom, and the crew had to do what he said. He could beat them to death, flog them, or shoot them, and there would be no recriminations at law. Some captains were kindly men. Many were not. There is an account of a young man who had a high fever and could hardly stand, yet the captain sent him to the topyard in a gale. He was too weak to hold on, and he fell to his death.

Furthermore, the profit or loss of a trip was dependent on the captain whose own salary came out of the profits, and if he owned the ship, all the profits! So he would cut back where he could. And that meant cutting back on food. Whenever any ship, naval or merchant, made a voyage they needed provisions, often in the form of hardtack (ship's biscuit) and salted meat as well as other commodities. The provisions had to be made from scratch, that is you put in your order to the necessary tradesmen, and they killed and salted the meat, and baked the biscuit. An unscrupulous captain would get 'second hand' provisions, old stuff that no-one wanted, half rancid, and expect the men to eat that. It was enough to make anyone mutiny!

The pay was lamentable. In today's equivalent, a sailor might make £3,000 a year. It was not enough to feed his family, if he had one. Worse, while waiting for a berth on a ship, a man might spend several weeks, or even months at the port, living in digs. He was paid in advance for the trip, and he had to settle his account with the landlord before he sailed, so in effect he was working for nothing. Even the 'officers', the mates and sailing masters, fared little better.

In the eighteenth century slavery was at its zenith. Ships would work the so-called 'golden triangle'. Leaving England laden with iron and other goods, they travelled to the West African coast where they traded the iron and so on for slaves, ivory and gold dust, then on to the Caribbean to offload the slaves, ivory and gold for sugar and tobacco, then back to England.

Often a ship would spend three months picking up the slaves from different ports along the African coast. Because the different tribes spoke different languages, they could not communicate with each other, and thus could not mutiny. Well, that was the theory. The sailors were the ones who had to load the slaves into tiers in the hold, feed them, exercise them (if the captain permitted) and clean out the hold after them. The stench in the hold was so strong it would make hardened sailors retch. They often could smell the slave ship before they could see it! The conditions for the slaves were so bad that another part of the sailor's job was to help throw the bodies overboard.

The sailors loathed working slavers, but if you were working on merchant vessels at that time slavery was usually part and parcel of the job.

So why did men sign on the merchant ships in the first place?

The answer is, there was nothing else for them. During the War of the Spanish Succession, which ended in 1713 with the treaty of Utrecht, the British navy had press-ganged thousands of men for their warships. With the treaty, however, all these men were redundant. They had nothing to go back to. So they went to sea as merchant seamen. It was all they knew how to do.

When a pirate ship attacked, raising the black flag with its threat: Yield and we give quarter; fight and we spare none! the crew surrendered immediately, even if the captain wanted to resist! The pirates plundered the ship, and then offered to sign up anyone who would like to 'go on the account'.

And most did like. They formed an orderly queue to sign the pirates' articles.

0 Comments

Bartholomew Roberts, the Greatest Pirate of All

1/26/2014

2 Comments

Bartholomew Roberts was the greatest pirate of them all. In just two years he captured 400 ships, most of which gave up without a fight when they saw the black flag (nicknamed by Roberts' crew the Jolly Roger).

Yet despite the epithet Black Bart, Roberts does not appear to have been of the calibre of Edward Teach (Blackbeard) who by all accounts was a dreadful bear of a man.

Bartholomew Roberts was born in South Wales, probably brought up Non-Conformist and went to sea when he was fourteen. Like many sailors, he was probably involved in the war of the Spanish succession, but when that war ended many who had been employed by his Majesty's navy, suddenly found themselves redundant. Some sailors found other employment or starved, but a few found work on merchant ships. Which meant working the slavers. And all the sailors loathed working slavers, not only for the stench, but also for the misery it entailed. So when a ship was captured by pirates, and they were invited (not forced) to join, they readily agreed to better conditions, less work, more time off, and better pay.

Roberts was different. He was forced to join Howell Davis's crew. Why? Because he was one of a rare breed - a navigator and they were desperate for a good navigator. But six weeks later when Davis died, Roberts was voted in to the position of captain which he accepted. Thus began a career which took the pirate company from fabulous riches to nearly dying of thirst, to the Caribbean, New England, and the slave coasts of West Africa.

So what was it that made Roberts so successful?

In the first place, he was well loved by his men. He was a first rate strategist, commander of men, navigator (as we have said) and he had the ability to inspire his men to great feats. He was also oddly, principled. In a situation where the majority of his company were drunken louts, he was tea-total, refused to allow his men to torture and kill prisoners, and when a ship was captured with slaves on board, he allowed those men who wished to join the company, and other slaves he set ashore where they had little chance of being re-captured. A woman prisoner had a guard to ensure that she was not raped, and this was written into the company's articles (or laws). He forced no man to join them with the possible exception of one Harry Glasby, another navigator and sailing master.

Altogether, Roberts was an enigma, an ordinary man turned pirate, a man with principles among a lawless crew. At one stage he commanded 250 men in three ships. So successful at relieving ships of their cargo was he that the Admiralty felt it necessary to send out two ships under the command of Chaloner Ogle to apprehend him.

Roberts was undoubtedly a rogue. But a handsome, daring, clever rogue. A swashbuckling hero in all his glory.

ONE SMALL CANDLE The Adventures of Bartholomew Roberts, Pirate is available in Print and on Kindle. See Amazon for details.
Available:
US
UK
CANADA
AUSTRALIA

For other countries see Amazon

5.0 out of 5 stars History, adventure, action, suspense, romance - this book has it all! Loved it!, 4 Jan 2014

By
Joan P. Ashley "J.P. Lane" (Gainesville, FL, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)

This review is from: GENTLEMAN OF FORTUNE, The Adventures of Bartholomew Roberts - Pirate (Kindle Edition)
Evelyn Tidman has done a superb job of bringing the adventures of the infamous pirate Bartholomew Roberts to life in her novel, `Gentlemen of Fortune' - one of my favorite reads of 2013.

Ms. Tidman's Roberts is a rogue you can't help falling in love with and although I know a bit about Roberts and knew the inevitable would happen, I found myself wishing it wouldn't; wishing that Roberts and the love of his life, the beautiful Portuguese lady, Lucia, would live happily ever after.

But such was not the lot of pirates and, with the exception of the love story which had me on the edge of my seat as much as anything else in this book, Ms. Tidman stays close to the historical facts. I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys good historical fiction, or anyone who just loves a great swashbuckling tale that keeps you turning the pages.

To see review click HERE.

2 Comments

A WALK IN THE WOODS

9/7/2013

0 Comments

Near where we live in West Norfolk, we are blessed not only with wild empty beaches, but other countryside too. Like the woods. And on a sunny autumnal day there is nothing Dave and I like to do more than to take Molly, our working cocker spaniel, and head out for an hour or two.

We have a choice here between the carefully-managed Sandringham woods, of mostly pine trees, with squirrels, jays, woodpeckers, and other wildlife, and of course the lesser-spotted tourist. The latter are in abundance at this time of year, usually in packs with their little ones and their dogs, and may be seen in all quarters of the forest. They can be heard too as their children shriek in delight or cry with tiredness, or you can hear anguished cries of dog owners as their beloved pets go tearing off into the bracken not heeding any commands.

On a more cautious note, there are adders and grass snakes at Sandringham, and people and dogs have been bitten. Furthermore in past years there have been accounts of dogs suffering a strange illness after a walk in the Sandringham woods, although we have not heard of anything so far this year. All of which means that we give Sandringham a wide berth until things quieten down a bit.

No for us, a different venue, the forest nearer to home. This is a forest of broadleaf trees, of winding paths, of quiet, not really discovered by the tourists - yet. Here the forest stretches towards the coast, and where the trees end, there is a view to the sea two miles or so away across golden fields. At this point, believe it or not, there are the remains of a lighthouse, for the sea once came in very close to here. In the 1953 floods the sea came much further, almost right into the village. There are also the ruins of a Roman fort on the Hill. It's surrounded by trees now, and very difficult to find if you do not know where it is, but when it was built it too would have had a view out to the sea.

<<< Naturally, Molly loves it in the woods. Tail wagging nineteen to the dozen she runs everywhere at top speed searching the undergrowth for rabbits, or indeed anything that moves. Worries about the adders which are here too.

And it was Molly who found our surprise of the day. >>>

This is the same picture cropped and enlarged, and you can just see an eye. It's actually an owl and it sat there just looking at us while we whipped out our mobile phones and snapped away.

Molly knew it was there but it did not appear bothered. It looks like it had a pigeon for lunch - and feathers on the ground further along the path tell the tale too.

Truth to tell, if it had not been for Molly, we would not have seen it.

And after all that effort there is only one thing left for a dog to do!

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Author

Evelyn Tidman, the author of REBELLION, Roger L'Estrange and the Kent Petition, the second in the Roger L'Estrange series; FOR THE KING, Roger L'Estrange and the Siege of King's Lynn, the first in the Roger L'Estrange series based on a true story of the English Civil War, GENTLEMAN OF FORTUNE, The Adventures of Bartholomew Roberts, Pirate. a historical swashbuckling romance; and ONE SMALL CANDLE The Story of William Bradford and the Pilgrim Fathers. All based on true stories.

Roger L'Estrange

THE SIEGE OF KING'S LYNN

Pirates - Action!

HISTORICAL RESEARCH PART 2 – THE PILGRIM FATHERS

How much research should be done for historical fiction? Can enough ever be done?

Why the english civil war?

ONE SMALL CANDLE - A snippet

What Made a Sailor Turn Pirate?

Bartholomew Roberts, the Greatest Pirate of All

A WALK IN THE WOODS

Author

Archives

Categories

Author

Archives

Categories

Historical Fiction News - Sign up for our newsletter