Wow, a novel of Edward VI! Can you believe it? An author actually found the 'boy king' Edward to be a worthy central character of his own story - and that in and of itself is reason to plug this novel as a 'must read' for Tudor enthusiasts. Only one other novelist (to my knowledge) has focused on Edward as the main character of his work - and that was Mark Twain in "The Prince and the Pauper."
"The Boy King" is a very well-written account of Edward's short reign, and the many complex relationships he experienced with the men who sought to govern England during his minority. What I especially enjoyed about this book was how believably Janet Wertman wrote Edward's character and emotions. Far from the distant, stoic figure we often picture in the young king, this Edward is vibrant, emotive, and easy to relate with. He feels deeply, questions everything, and serves as a (surprisingly) engaging main character in his own right. I, for one - being currently in the trenches of writing my debut biography of Edward VI - am both relieved and happy to see that a fiction author has portrayed him in such a way. The attention to his own personal feelings and motivations is long overdue.

If you're unfamiliar with this book, here's the back-cover blurb:

"The Unsuspecting Reign of Edward Tudor

Motherless since birth and newly bereft of his father, King Henry VIII, nine-year-old Edward Tudor ascends to the throne of England and quickly learns that he cannot trust anyone, even himself.

Edward is at first relieved that his uncle, the new Duke of Somerset, will act on his behalf as Lord Protector, but this consolation evaporates as jealousy spreads through the court. Challengers arise on all sides to wrest control of the child king, and through him, England.

While Edward can bring frustratingly little direction to the Council’s policies, he refuses to abandon his one firm conviction: that Catholicism has no place in England. When Edward falls ill, this steadfast belief threatens England’s best hope for a smooth succession: the transfer of the throne to Edward’s very Catholic half-sister, Mary Tudor, whose heart’s desire is to return the realm to the way it worshiped in her mother’s day."

I appreciated so much that we got a great sense of Edward's humanity in this book. Too often, I think historians have missed (or ignored) the fact that Edward was, after all, only a nine-year-old boy when his father died in 1547. He was a child who had never known his mother, been raised at a distance from his illustrious father, and inherited the throne while still not fully mature enough to realize all that it entailed. He knew a lot of loss in his short life, and this book captures the raw human emotions that made Edward a person we can all sympathize with. Really, when you look at Edward's life, it's hard not to feel sympathy for him.
I quite like how Wertman characterized Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, too. Often referred to as "the Good Duke", as opposed to Warwick ("the Bad"), Somerset gets quite a sympathetic characterization here, too. She beautifully illustrates a "what-if" scenario between the young Edward and his Lord Protector uncle - arguing in this story that it was only through Somerset's care and protection of Edward's youth and innocence that he took control of many governmental matters, including the signing of his brother's death warrant. He is truly seen as a protector here, and a guide who Edward trusts and respects implicitly.
Warwick, on the other hand, is quite obviously the antagonist. The latter half of the book paints a stark contrast between the good and bad dukes, as well as Edward's personal feelings about them. I found this to be a particularly interesting story line, as Wertman follows in the footsteps of many of Somerset's 19th and 20th-century biographers. Whether or not you believe that these characterizations are true to history, they paint a thought-provoking picture that makes you look at the situation from a different angle. Sure, Edward is still a puppet king to some extent here - but it is not necessarily directly the cause of evil ambition on his uncle's part.
Once again, the emotion and human elements that shine through in this story are commendable and bring the history to life.
I highly recommend this book - not only because it is well-written, but because it is the only modern-day novel of Edward VI, and it deserves a place on any Tudor enthusiast's book shelf. There's actually a whole trilogy of Seymour novels by Wertman - following the stories of Jane Seymour and Somerset - so I'd be willing to bet those deserve a read, as well.

Many thanks to Janet Wertman for the complimentary copy of "The Boy King" in return for an honest review. It was a pleasure to read!

Support Janet by purchasing her books, visiting her website, and connecting with her on social media. Here are some links for you!

• Book purchases
  
• Website
  
• Facebook Page
  

This day in 1536 probably felt like any other day for Queen Anne Boleyn. It is likely that she didn't think twice about two very significant encounters that she had with two men of King Henry VIII's court - one, the king's Groom of the Stool, and the other, a court musician.
She wouldn't  have predicted the ramifications of these two encounters, or how they might have affected her speedy downfall over the next few weeks (which would really begin the following day).
At this point in her marriage to Henry VIII, Anne was likely aware of the negative attitude of much of the court as it related her and her failure to provide the king with his sought-after male heir. Over the (almost) three years of her queenship, she had made more than a few enemies - not least of whom was Thomas Cromwell, one of the king's most esteemed advisors, and one of the most powerful men in England. But just how much danger did she think she was in of losing her status? The idea that the king might be tiring of her and looking for a divorce - something that she was familiar enough with, having partially facilitated his annulment from his previous queen - might have been plaguing her mind. But could she have predicted the actual events that would follow? I'm assuming not.

This day, though probably not substantial in the moment, would turn out to be incredibly significant. Words spoken on this day between Anne and these two gentlemen have lived on as some of the most famous dialogue of the Tudor period - and certainly her downfall. Let's dive into these encounters, and what made them especially dangerous for Anne Boleyn:

Mark Smeaton
Let's start first with Mark Smeaton - a groom of Henry VIII's privy chamber, as well as a popular court musician. Records suggest that he was likely young and of quite low status. He was known intimately as "Mark", rather than "Smeaton", and apparently enjoyed favor from both the king and queen. Apparently, on 29 April, Mark was seen standing at a window in Anne's presence chamber. Noticing how sullen and dour he appeared, the queen asked why he was so sad. Mark reportedly replied, "It is no matter." This evidently irritated Anne, who quickly put him in his place. She said, "You may not look to have me speak to you as I should do to a noble man, because ye be an inferior person." Chastised, Mark replied, "No, no, a look sufficeth me; and thus fare you well."
Now, on the surface, this conversation doesn't appear damning at all. In fact, it indicates the opposite of favor by Anne to Mark - she's telling him that he shouldn't expect her to ask after his feelings, or care about him in such a way as she might for a man of higher status. Mark does nothing wrong here either; he simply says that one look from her suffices, indicating that he is honored by her attention and expects nothing more. So why does this matter?
According to one 18th-century historian, John Strype, this encounter may have contributed to Mark's subsequent betrayal of Anne. The following day, he would be arrested by Cromwell's men - taken to the latter's home, and interrogated (possibly tortured, though we can't be sure). At this point, Mark would famously "confess" to having slept with the queen on three occasions. Why would he have confessed to such a thing if it weren't true? Possibly to avenge a queen who had harshly rebuked him the day prior.
We can't know his motivations for confessing to an affair with Anne, but it is certainly possible that this encounter on 29 April might have contributed to it. Mark, feeling embarrassed and hurt by Anne, might have expected that such a confession would only have ramifications for her, and not him. (How wrong he would have been!)

Henry Norris
Henry Norris was the king's Groom of the Stool, meaning he had the most intimate, private access to Henry VIII, as well as being one of his closest friends. He had also been close with Anne for the past few years - sharing her reformed faith, courting her cousin, and likely making several visits to her chambers (along with other men) in very expected, respectable ways. They were friends, and until this day, no one would have (probably) had any cause to think there was more going on between them.
However, on 29 April, Anne confronted Norris and asked why it was taking him so long to marry her cousin, whom he had been courting for some time. We don't know his exact answer, but whatever he said (we can maybe assume it was some light flirtation or flattery towards the queen), Anne's response was: "You look for dead men's shoes; for if aught were to come to the king but good, you would look to have me."
This did not look good for her. The first part of her statement indicated that Norris was putting off his own marriage because he wished he could have her instead. While this wasn't necessarily completely damning, it did illustrate a possibly-too-intimate teasing and flirtatious relationship between the two of them, which would surely have been noted by anyone who overheard them. But the second part of the statement was worse, because she mentioned the king's death. Although she wasn't exactly predicting or hoping for it, the mention of "aught happening to the king" was more than enough for heads to roll. And Norris knew it. Blanching with the realization of the queen's dangerous words, he reportedly replied passionately that "if [he should have such a thought], he would his head were off." (How true these words would prove to be in just a few weeks' time.)
Anne did notice the error in her statement at this point, and she ushered Norris off to see her almoner, in order to swear to her good character. She must have feared - even if only a little - that her words would have been heard and possibly twisted against her by her enemies

Still, I'm convinced that Anne couldn't have known just how dire things were about to get for her. This day marked the beginning of the end for her, and it wouldn't be until the next day - with Mark's apprehension - that she would begin to realize that things were fast turning against her. Within twenty days, she - along with Henry, Mark, and three other men - would be dead.

On this day in 1540, Catherine Carey - daughter of Mary Boleyn and William Carey - wed Sir Francis Knollys. At the time of their wedding, Catherine was only sixteen years  old, and her new husband was around 29 (though the exact year of his birth is disputed).
Francis, the son of Sir Robert Knollys and Lettice Peniston, came from a wealthy family and was educated at Oxford before becoming a favorite courtier of Henry VIII. In 1538, the king had bestowed upon him the estate of Rotherfield Greys in Oxfordshire. He was also made a gentleman-pensioner at court, and had attended the new queen, Anne of Cleves, upon her arrival at the English court in 1539 - the year before his wedding. He was, clearly, a well-positioned gentleman of high rank, and an excellent match for the young Catherine Carey.

Two years after their wedding, Francis entered the House of Commons - improving further upon their social standing and wealth. Catherine, meanwhile, had already been established as a maid-of-honor to both Anne of Cleves, and later, Catherine Howard - so she, too, was a valuable fixture at court with a good reputation. Despite being the niece of the ill-fated Anne Boleyn, who had been executed years earlier, Catherine Carey (now Knollys) appears to have been highly-regarded.
Catherine, known first as Mistress Knollys, and then Lady Knollys after 1547 when Francis was knighted, bore her husband fourteen children - only one of whom reportedly died in infancy (the last):

• Mary Knollys (b. 1541)
• Henry Knollys (b. 1542)
• Lettice Knollys (b. 1543) - the future wife of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester!
• William Knollys (b. 1544)
• Edward Knollys (b. 1546)
• Robert Knollys (b. 1547)
• Richard Knollys (b. 1548)
• Elizabeth Knollys (b. 1549)
• Thomas Knollys (b. 1550-1551?)
• Francis Knollys (b. 1552)
• Anne Knollys (b. 1555)
• Catherine Knollys (b. 1559)
• Margaret Knollys (b. ?)
• Dudley Knollys (b. 1562)

Though Catherine was pregnant and/or giving birth to a child nearly every year of their marriage, it did not seem to slow down her career as a court lady. However, after years in service to Henry VIII's queens, she and her family were forced to flee England for Germany upon Queen Mary's ascension in 1553 - as they were staunch Protestants in a now-very-Catholic country.

Upon Elizabeth's ascension in 1558, Catherine and Francis returned, and she took up the post of Chief Lady of the Bedchamber to the new queen (and her possible half-sister, if you believe the theory that Catherine was really the illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII, by Mary Boleyn). She was a favorite of Elizabeth's - holding some of the highest-ranking and most senior positions within her household. Yet, the possible familial connection was never acknowledged.
When Catherine died on 15 January 1569, the queen was distraught. She held a grand funeral for Catherine at Westminster Abbey, and had her buried in St. Edmund's Chapel. Catherine left her husband and thirteen of her children - some of whom had married.
Like most Tudor relationships, it is difficult to know the true emotional nature of Catherine and Francis's marriage, and whether or not it was a love match with real romantic feeling. But their numerous offspring certainly indicates that it was likely a happy marriage with a good deal of affection. Though Francis spent much of his time at court during their union, Catherine also enjoyed a number of posts in the households of various queens - so we can't assume that she felt particularly abandoned by her husband at their Oxfordshire manor house. They seem to have been a relatively standard example of a noble marriage in sixteenth-century England - and quite a nice example, at that!

Happy 481st Anniversary, Mary and Francis!

On this day in 1534, a 28-year-old woman by the name of Elizabeth Barton met her end by hanging at Tyburn, accused and convicted of treason against King Henry VIII. Her crime? Opposing his annulment from Catherine of Aragon and desire to remarry Anne Boleyn. But the details of her opposition go further than a mere disagreement. Elizabeth's story is a fascinating one, because she claimed to receive visions from God, and prophesied about future events - some of which proved true. Her reputation as both the recipient of heavenly miracles and her knowledge of future events (granted from God) earned her the monikers of the "Nun of Kent" and the "Holy Maid of London". Certain others who found her ravings a bit loony instead referred to her as the "Mad Maid of Kent". 
Her execution on this day 487 years ago is one worth discussion. Just what did the "Nun of Kent" do to inspire such anger in the king? 

Firstly, let's explore Elizabeth Barton's background. Little is known of her birth, childhood, or upbringing, but it is thought that she was born sometime around 1506 in the village of Aldington, near Canterbury. She was born to a poor Catholic family, and evidently worked as a servant for some of her younger years - as she was employed as such in 1525 when the first mention about her heavenly visions was noted. 
In truth, she had fallen ill around that time, and as a result claimed to have been given the gift of divine sight. She was eighteen, working for an Aldington farmer named Thomas Cobb, when this occurred. All of a sudden, she was able to predict events - such as the death of an infant in the household. She began instructing those around her to pray for the Virgin Mary's intercession, and to make holy pilgrimages. Over a short period of time, her name became recognizable as her visions and divine instruction spread to more and more people. Holy men, such as Archbishop William Warham and Bishop John Fisher, attested to her piety and devotion to her Catholic faith. In short, she became a woman revered for her deeply religious convictions, and her close, gifted relationship with the Divine. Soon, she was received into the Benedictine St. Sepulchre's Priory in Canterbury, and became known as the "Nun of Kent". 
She took on a rather public life after this - giving miraculous healings to those in need, prophesying in the streets, and spreading messages from God to everyone who clambered to listen to her. In 1527 (just two years after her first recorded vision), she had gained such popularity that a book was published about her many miracles and prophesies, titled A Marueilous Woorke of Late Done at Court of Streete in Kent. 
Her work even gained her the notice of religious men at the center of King Henry VIII's court - and by 1528, Elizabeth was holding meetings with Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, who was apparently impressed by her. Soon after, she met with the king himself, as well as Thomas More. Her prophesies at this time supported the king very much - warning against heretics (Lutherans). Remember, this is still a few years before Henry even considered breaking with Rome. 

But once this happened, around 1532, suddenly Elizabeth found herself very much at odds with King Henry. Her prophesies, which the king had enjoyed and supported for a few years, now turned against him. When it became known that he sought an annulment from his rightful Catholic queen, Elizabeth made known that she had "seen" the place in Hell that awaited him, following his betrayal of God and the Catholic Church's teaching. Knowing that he intended to remarry Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth prophesied that God had warned her that he would surely die within three years of that unholy union. Such a claim was indisputably treasonous. To speak out against the king so publicly, and to mention his death... well, was there any way that she could go unpunished? 
Due to her popularity, however, she was not instantly arrested. Thomas More, who had questioned the validity and accuracy of her "sight" before, perhaps managed to convince the king that she was very likely incorrect anyway, and maybe didn't pose a real threat to him. Instead of actively convicting her, agents of the king spread word around London that the "Mad Maid of Kent" was mentally disturbed, and further undermined her credibility by alleging that she engaged in sexual activity with priests. 
A year later, though, the fear that Elizabeth's prophesies might encourage Catholic dissidents to rise against the king and his new Queen Anne, caused the Crown to take matters further. Her reputation had been sufficiently smeared so as not to inspire too much public opposition when she was arrested in 1533. The historical record tells us that Elizabeth then confessed to falsifying her many divine visions... however, it's important to note that these records come from Thomas Cromwell - and it was certainly in his best interest (as Henry's right-hand man) to record any "confessions" exactly as he and the king would like them. We can't know for certain if she truly recanted or confessed to anything. Friars were brought in to testify against her, and she was ultimately condemned by an Act of Attainder passed by Parliament, which allowed for punishment without a proper trial. 
Convicted of treason against His Majesty with no hope of escape, Elizabeth was taken to Tyburn on 20 April 1534, and there hanged along with five of her chief supporters, who were priests, friars, and monks: Edward Bocking, John Dering, Henry Gold, Hugh Rich, and Richard Risby. 
In a very interesting twist, Elizabeth's head was removed from her body and set upon a pike on London Bridge - the usual warning against traitors. She was the first woman at the time, and indeed, the ONLY woman in history to have had her severed head displayed on London Bridge. (Not exactly a club you want to join, but she did.)
The rest of her body was buried at Greyfriars Church in Newgate.

Oh, what a treat it is to read a good historical novel about a time period I'm not overly-familiar with! I love when I delve into a new world, and while this book, "The King's Witch", is not too far outside the Tudor period, it focuses largely on an event in early-Stuart history that I've not spent much time reading about - namely, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.
Tracy Borman is a fabulous historian (one of my favorites, actually) and has written some incredibly fascinating and well-researched non-fiction. But "The King's Witch" is her first foray into the wonderful world of historical fiction (published in 2018), and I have to say, this is a great example of an author who can very competently write both fiction and nonfiction (and no, I don't believe that's always the case!). Below is my full review of this fascinating story, following healer Frances Gorges, a character you can't help but cheer for. (She was also a real person, unbeknownst to me!)

Does that capture your interest? It certainly piqued mine, and though I've rarely delved into 17th-century novels, I was very excited to start this one. Frances Gorges is a character I instantly liked and sympathized with. She's a healer, having learned the art of medicinal plants and herbs from her mother, and earning a positive reputation among her many patients. The story opens with her at Queen Elizabeth I's death bed in 1603, and as we (as Tudor enthusiasts) may know, her healing work will soon be under serious scrutiny when the new king, James VI of Scotland/I of England, takes the throne upon the Virgin Queen's death. James is notorious for his fear of witchcraft and loathing of women... so the days ahead are dark for Frances, indeed.
Sir William Cecil - a key figure in the Elizabethan government, and new right-hand man to King James, proves immediately to be one of Frances's foes. He's deeply suspicious of her, and takes his role leading James's witch hunt quite seriously. He is determined to bring Frances to justice - right to the grisly fate of 17th-century witches: burning at the stake. Tracy Borman writes so vividly as to make you seriously afraid of Cecil on Frances's behalf. (I've rarely disliked a character so much in historical fiction, but Cecil is a vile character here).
When Frances is summoned back to court soon after James's ascension, to serve his young daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, she finds herself cornered by her enemies. Somehow she must carefully navigate the treacherous environment of court - while maintaining her healing work, and serving faithfully in the child princess's household. It doesn't take long before she's forced to view the fate of a condemned witch herself, showing her just how careful she must be. Thankfully, in addition to her several enemies, she finds some really heartwarming allies - and even a bit of romance.
I found Frances's character to be one of immense strength and kindness, which made her the perfect heroine in my eyes. Her life is not an easy one (and the court of the cold and cruel King James is certainly not portrayed as one I'd like to have experienced). Unfortunately, as the novel progresses, Frances's life is not made any easier... and without giving away any spoilers, I'll say that she finds herself swept up in the most treasonous plot against James I - the Gunpowder Plot, in which Catholic rebels sought to blow up Parliament, where the king, his heir, and all high-ranking members of government presided.
We know the fate of the Gunpowder Plot and its ultimate failure... so Frances's troubles certainly continue. The second half of this book is so good that I so badly want to write this review in more detail, but doing so would spoil some of the best, most tear-jerking aspects of the story. Suffice to say, it certainly tugs at the heartstrings.

I listened to this book via Audible, and didn't have a hard copy of it. So my ONE complaint was that there was no Author's Note in the audio recording, and I desperately wished there was. I really wanted to know if Tracy Borman took inspiration from true history and records, regarding characterizations, as well as certain high-ranking court members' involvement in the Gunpowder Plot's planning. (If you've read the book, you likely know who I'm referring to). The lack of an Author's Note in this version of the book was a surprise, knowing Tracy Borman's reputation as a very well-respected historian. Surely she'd include one in her novel, right?! Well, of course she did. Within a couple hours of posting this original review, Tracy reached out to me on Twitter and happily offered to email me the Author's Note for the book - which was well worth the read! I can confirm now that there IS an Author's Note in other formats of the book (not sure why it was skipped in the audio book). Therefore, this review has been edited!
Overall, I really highly recommend this novel - the first in Tracy's "Frances Gorges Trilogy". She is a fantastic writer, and I can guarantee that her fiction will suck you in just as thoroughly as her nonfiction. Personally, I can't wait to pick up (or listen to) book #2, which will carry on following the executions of the Gunpowder Plot traitors. I'm anxious to see where Frances's story goes from there...

Support Tracy by purchasing her books, visiting her website, and connecting on social media!
Website: www.tracyborman.co.uk
Twitter: @TracyBorman

If you caught my book review post about the novel "A Tip for the Hangman" (published 31 March), you know how much I enjoyed it! (If you missed it, check it out here.) Because of how much I liked this book - and how much I know my readers will also enjoy it - I wanted to offer a special author interview with Allison Epstein. I sent her several interview questions last week, and she was kind enough to provide some thoughtful answers.

Without further ado, here's my interview with Allison Epstein!

1. Have you always wanted to be a novelist? If you're willing, walk us through your path to the publishing of this novel. (I have to admit that I saw the video of you unboxing your author copies of "A Tip for the Hangman", and your excitement at holding your own book was tangible!). 

I’ve always wanted to be a writer—I’ve never wanted to be anything else, honestly! (There was a brief period in middle school where I wanted to play the Phantom of the Opera on Broadway, but I don’t count this as a real goal, for obvious reasons.) I’ve been writing ever since I can remember, all the way back to terrible short stories in first grade.
 
A Tip for the Hangman wasn’t the first novel I wrote, but it was the first one I felt could possibly be published. I started it the summer before my senior year of college, and there was something about Kit that connected with me right away. I knew this was the book I wanted to throw myself into and get right.
 
It was a long process, for sure: I started the first draft in 2013, and I was revising it up to the wire before its publication this year. But my agent and editor were huge supporters all the way through. They helped me see what the book was trying to be, and I couldn’t be happier with the way it stands now.

2. Your novel follows the fascinating life of Elizabethan playwright, Christopher "Kit" Marlowe. What initially sparked your interest in Kit? Do you identify as a "Tudor enthusiast" yourself? 

I’m definitely a Tudor enthusiast! My fascination with the Tudor period came from my lifelong Shakespeare geekdom: I studied early modern drama in college, and I will attend any production of Hamlet within a 20-mile radius of my home. My interest spiraled out into learning more about the historical and political context these plays were written in, and now pretty much any Tudor-adjacent setting is catnip to me.

I first came across Kit in a college class called “English Literature Pre-1600”—which, as you can imagine, is a pretty wide window! My professor introduced us to a different English writer every week, starting with a quick bio and moving into the writer’s work. Usually the biographies were pretty dull: the author went to Cambridge or Oxford, ran up some debts, got married, maybe had a kid.

And then there was Kit Marlowe.
My professor introduced him as “basically the first celebrity writer in England, probably a spy, probably gay, probably an atheist, murdered at 29, wrote about the devil.”

My reaction: “I’m gonna need you to say more, right now.”
 
I stopped by the library on the way home and checked out every book about Marlowe I could find. I fell deep down the rabbit hole, researching Elizabethan spy networks, international politics, everything that could have informed this strange, wild, wonderful man’s life. Seven years later, I had a book on my hands.
 
3. I absolutely loved the way you wrote Kit's character, and I couldn't help but admire and genuinely like him as a person throughout this book. How much did you know about him before beginning your writing, and did your opinion of him change through the course of your research? 

First, thank you so much—I love Kit dearly! His character was the first part of A Tip for the Hangman that really clicked for me, and though the plot and pacing have changed dramatically from draft to draft, Kit’s personality has remained mostly the same. There’s something so wonderfully modern about his scandalous behavior and unorthodox ideas—a refusal to bow to authority that fits almost better in 2021 than in 1591.
 
The other great thing about Kit Marlowe’s life for a historical fiction writer is that there’s a really compelling amount of information about what he thought, said, and believed—and an equally compelling amount of mystery. He’s pretty well documented for a Tudor-era person of non-noble blood, but at the same time there are lots of intriguing gaps in the record: and those gaps are where I really had space to explore his character and get to know him.

4. Can you tell us a bit about your research process? Which sources did you consult to dive into the world(s) of Kit Marlowe, Elizabethan playwrights, and Walsingham's spy network? Any particular sources that you found especially interesting? 

My research process usually comes in two waves. First, I’ll do a big block of background reading, grounding myself in the period and in the characters’ lives. This’ll help me get a good grasp of how my plot will shake out, and it gets me far enough along to outline. Then, as I start actually writing, there will inevitably be more specific questions I didn’t even know I was wondering about. And then it’s back to the books, but this time on a targeted fact-finding mission. When were forks invented? What was the name of Mary Stuart’s chamberlain in 1586? That sort of thing.
 
I was lucky to have studied the period in college, so I got a good crash course in Tudor history and politics from some really wonderful English literature professors. (I’m currently researching a completely different time and place for an upcoming project, and man, am I realizing how helpful this was.) There were also some wonderful primary sources available online through the National Archives and the British Library, which I was able to quote almost directly in the book.
 
For general worldbuilding, I leaned pretty heavily on Elizabeth’s London by Liza Picard, which I wholeheartedly recommend. I also loved The Reckoning by Charles Nicholl, which is a great “what-if” exploration of some of the more mysterious aspects of Marlowe’s life and death. It’s out of print now, but if you can get your hands on a copy, it’s a great read.
 
5. Do you personally believe that Kit was a spy? This is a debated theory among historians, but in your opinion, do the primary sources provide a compelling argument? Or was this novel more of a fun "what if" scenario? 

I’m completely convinced Kit was a spy! The historical record provides so much good evidence that, for me, is tough to explain away by coincidence. The letter from Lord Burghley to the faculty at Cambridge explaining away Kit’s absences is a pretty strong piece of evidence in my opinion—you’re not going to get the queen’s right-hand man to intervene on your behalf unless you’re involved in some pretty high-up stuff.
 
As far as the actual espionage activities described in my book, they’re almost entirely “what-if”s. There’s little to no evidence that Kit Marlowe was directly involved in the effort to unmask Mary, Queen of Scots, and the plot with Lord Strange in the second half of the book involves a good deal of speculation. But the timelines matched up so beautifully for both plots, and the opportunity to imagine what might have happened was too much fun to pass up.
 
6. I appreciate you taking the time to explain some of your characterizations of other characters in this novel in your Author's Note. Besides Kit, who are some of your other favorite characters that you wrote about, and why? 

I love this question! Sir Francis Walsingham in particular is one I kept close to my heart. I’m just so impressed by his cleverness: he truly was the brains behind so much of the political situation in his day, and he could scheme circles around everyone. I wanted to tap into the physical and emotional toll of carrying responsibility like that, and what emerged was a practical, weary man with a keen sense of how much he’s asking of others. He became sort of a mentor figure to Kit as the book evolved, and I surprised myself by how much I cared about him.
 
Another character I loved for a completely different reason was Robert Poley, another member of the queen’s spy network. Unlike with Walsingham, I don’t sympathize with Poley at all. He’s a trash human being, but his twisted mind was so much fun to write!
 
7. If you could time-travel for a day, would you personally like to experience life in Elizabethan England (or the earlier portion of the Tudor period), or is this a period of time better admired from afar? 

I would love to experience one day in Elizabethan England, but only one day, and no more! I forget who originally said that time travel is fun for rich straight white men and nobody else, but it’s definitely true that the Tudor period was a brutal time. There are so many specific details of everyday life that I’d love to see firsthand—I would pay cash money to watch a Tudor person cook a period-appropriate meal, for one thing!—but it would be safest to treat this as a quick visit rather than a long-term stay.
 
8. What are your personal feelings regarding the Elizabeth I / Mary, Queen of Scots drama? I imagine you did quite a lot of research about this portion of Elizabeth's reign, as it features heavily in the novel. Do you consider yourself "Team Elizabeth" or "Team Mary"? 

Objectively, Elizabeth and Mary were both playing the political hand they were dealt, and they both made pretty ruthless decisions to advance their own causes. They were savvy political leaders navigating a deeply treacherous landscape, and I both respect them for what they accomplished and judge them for what they were willing to pay.
 
OK, now that the historian’s caveat is out of the way, I’m Team Mary all day, every day.
 
What can I say? I love a schemey underdog. She was creative and determined and completely convinced of her own worth as a person, and I have to respect that. There’s something very cloak-and-dagger about Mary’s history that speaks to the drama queen in me, and I found myself rooting for her all throughout my research, even though I knew how the story ended.
 
9. On that note, are there any other characters from sixteenth-century England that you'd be interested in writing about? Any other specific Tudor favorites? 

Oooh yes! I’ve always wanted to write a novel about Anne of Cleves. I love her so much, and history has done her dirty in my opinion. She’s often written off as the ugly German princess who was too innocent to know what she was getting into, but she’s one of the only women of her era to play Henry VIII’s game and objectively win it. This project has been fighting me for years, but maybe one day I’ll figure it out.
 
I also want to write a YA paranormal mystery series where John Dee, Elizabeth’s astrologer, solves crimes with the help of an angel sidekick. I’m keeping that in my back pocket in case I ever learn how to write YA.
 
10. Are you currently working on any works-in-progress that you can tell us about? Are you planning to dabble any more in Tudor/Elizabethan fiction in the future? 

I’m deep in revision on another project that I won’t talk too much about, because it’s not really fit to see the light of day… But I will say that it’s set in 19th-century Russia, at the very end of the Napoleonic wars. I’m one of those insufferable people who will talk about War and Peace for 700 hours if you let me, so it’s been really lovely to spend some time in that world.
 
I’m definitely not turning my back on Tudor times for good, though! It’s my first historical love, and there are so many more stories I’m itching to explore.
 
Bonus Question (because as a first-time author writing my first book, I'm curious): Can you walk us through your writing process and routine? What does a day in your life look like when working on a book?
 
I work full-time as an editor, so my writing process is sort of an exercise in finding time and making time. I usually try to get a good hour or so in the morning before I start work, and if I’m on a roll I might get another half-hour or so after dinner. This has worked well for me, though—I’ve never been one of those people who can focus on writing for seven hours at a stretch! I’ll get 25 minutes of good writing or revising, followed by 10 minutes scrolling Twitter, followed by another 25 of cranking out a scene. If you stack up enough 25-minute blocks in a month, sooner or later you’ll have a book!
 
Bonus Bonus Question (because I’m excited): What are some final thoughts you’d like to leave my Tudor enthusiast readers with, regarding “A Tip for the Hangman” and Kit Marlowe?
 
I just want to thank you for inviting me to chat with you, and your readers for giving the book a try! A Tip for the Hangman is and will always be the book of my heart, and I’m so excited to share it with other Tudor enthusiasts!

Many thanks again to Allison Epstein for taking the time to do this interview for The Tudor Enthusiast!

As a reminder, you can support and/or connect with Allison in the following ways:

• Purchase "A Tip for the Hangman" on Amazon HERE!
• Visit Allison Epstein's website HERE!
• Allison's Twitter and Instagram handles: @rapscallison

On this day in 1590, one of the Elizabethan period's most notable figures died in London after an illustrious and impressive career. Sir Francis Walsingham, roughly around the age of fifty-eight, had served Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I for thirty-one years, become known as her spymaster with an impressive and highly effective intelligence network. Let's take a brief look at Walsingham's life, key accomplishments, and lasting legacy.

Francis was born around 1532 to a family that had been involved in court life for a number of years. His father, a lawyer, likely encouraged and inspired Francis's career ambitions, though he died when Francis was only two years old. The family was fervent in their reformed Protestant faith, and when Francis was of age, he enrolled in the most evangelical of all Cambridge colleges, King's College, where he studied law.
In 1553, when Catholic Queen Mary I took the throne upon her younger brother's death, Francis found himself fleeing England along with hundreds of other zealous Protestants who feared the Roman Church's influence in the country. He lived in Italy for five years, continuing to study law and a number of languages - including Italian and French - skills that would prove useful for his later career as a statesman and diplomat at court. As was a common theme with Englishmen of the reformed faith, he returned to England when Elizabeth I succeeded her sister in 1558, and found himself elected to her parliament in January 1559. His court career had begun.
It's unclear just how purposeful Francis's involvement in intelligence began, but towards the end of the 1560s, he had begun working for Sir William Cecil, the queen's secretary. Through this work, he began to uncover hints at a Catholic plot to overthrow the Protestant Elizabeth in favor of her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots. He dove into uncovering the details of this plot, and his inexperience at spy work proved obvious when he falsely believed the innocence of a London banker, Roberto Ridolfi, whom he had been  interrogating for his involvement in the plot. This naivety led to missing a crucial opportunity to uncover the Duke of Norfolk's treason, and Ridolfi's significant hand in passing dangerous and threatening letters on the Scottish queen's behalf. Norfolk would later be executed, but this delay in uncovering the depth of the nobleman's treason was a personal failure for Walsingham. Around this time, he coined a phrase that would define his career: "there is lesse daynger in fearinge to much than too lyttle."

He served as ambassador to France in 1570 - at odds with Cecil over whether or not France was a desirable ally for England (Francis thought not), and the ensuing massacre of Protestants on St. Bartholomew's Day was a significant blow to his diplomatic career, but it only served to reinforce his own belief that the Catholic Scottish queen would remain a threat to Elizabeth as long as she was alive. In 1573, when he was recalled to England, Francis was appointed to the Privy Council and named a principal secretary to the queen. He held an enormous role here - responsible for handling foreign and domestic affairs and corresponding with ambassadors. Elizabeth appears to have really liked and respected him, which was crucial for his success in the post. While she often made fun of his dour and severe appearance (dressed in Puritan black much of the time), she acknowledged his witty tongue and sharp humor. He did upset her once in 1579 when he opposed her planned betrothal with the French Duke of Anjou, but after a brief dismissal from court, he was back in favor.
At this point, Walsingham's spy network and intelligence work took off. Not content to sit back while plots to murder Elizabeth and place Catholic Mary on the throne, he created a vast network of undercover spies, and sent them across the continent - even into northern Africa. Through a wide variety of intelligence-gathering tactics, such as bribery, interrogation, torture, threats (such as occasional use of the rack), and psychological games, Walsingham managed to successfully uncover two major Elizabethan plots - first the Throckmorton Plot in 1583, and then the Babington Plot of 1586, which directly led to the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. His final intelligence maneuvers would prove extremely useful in the coming war against Spain, as several of his spies would provide detailed reports of the Spanish plans for the Armada invasion of 1588.
By this time, Walsingham was elderly by Elizabethan standards, and apparently in considerable debt at the time of his death on 6 April 1590. His legacy as one of history's great men of British intelligence, is clouded by secrecy (as the nature of the job requires) and thus few of his methods are known to this day. But it is clear that he played a vital role in defending Elizabeth I's throne, forging the later unification of England and Scotland, and helping to neutralize foreign threats during Elizabeth's reign. He was well-respected for his role as spymaster, earning this description from English chronicler, William Camden: "[He was] a most subtle searcher of hidden secrets, who knew excellently well how to win men's minds unto him... He saw every man, and none saw him."