***Please ensure you are only following official social media accounts for The Redhead Notes. A fake profile has been contacting people on Instagram. Jennie Griffin will never ask you to send money for a book review or to enroll in any programs.
Due to the high volume of requests that have been received, Jennie has temporarily closed submissions. Learn More
Hi, I’m Darren Harris and I’m an author of historical fiction. My debut novel The King’s Son reached number 5 in Amazon’s bestseller list for medieval historical fiction, which I’m very proud of. Away from writing I am a teacher of amazing young people with special needs, although I originally qualified as a history teacher in 2001 and have been Head of History at several city and county schools. History has been a passion for me all of my life. I am an historian and public speaker, giving talks to heritage groups and history societies, and I have researched my own family tree back to the 15th century. I live in Leicestershire, in the English midlands with my partner Lisa, our children, and a steady supply of orphaned or injured squirrels that we foster for a squirrel sanctuary!
If I were to ask most people about the most famous King Henry, they would likely mention Henry VIII and his many wives. After all, he has received the most attention in media. What made you choose the lesser known Henry Tudor and his story of how he came to power?
Many years ago I came across the story of Richard of Eastwell. The story, in circulation since the 1700’s, tells of an elderly bricklayer working for Sir Thomas Moyle in the village of Eastwell, England around the year 1546. Every lunchbreak the old man would sit away from the other workers and read a book. Sir Thomas became curious as this was a very unusual thing for a labourer to do. He discovered that the old man was reading a book in Latin and, intrigued, struck up a conversation with him. The old man told Sir Thomas that his name was Richard. When he was a child he boarded with a Latin schoolmaster and he did not know who his real parents were. Four times a year a gentleman would visit and pay for his upkeep. When he was 16 the gentleman took him to an encampment where he was introduced to the king. The king was Richard III and the meeting was on the eve of the battle of Bosworth. The king said he was Richard’s father and told his son to watch the forthcoming battle from a safe vantage point. If he won the battle the king promised to publicly acknowledge Richard as his son, but if he lost the boy was to forever conceal his identity to protect himself. King Richard was slain in the fight against Henry Tudor the next morning and the boy fled to London, where he became apprenticed to a bricklayer. Whether through sympathy or out of respect, Sir Thomas allowed Richard to build himself a small cottage on his Eastwell estate where he could live out the rest of his days. This cottage still stands today and is known as ‘Plantagenet Cottage’, although it has been modernised and extended.
As an interesting postscript to this story, the record of Richard’s burial was re-discovered in Eastwell’s parish register around Michaelmas 1720 by the Earl of Winchilsea. The burial record is a 1598 transcript of the original which states Richard Plantagenet was buried on the 22 day of December 1550.
I thought this would make the basis for an incredible story; Richard III had an illegitimate son who escapes the Battle of Bosworth but instead of becoming a bricklayer and disappearing from the pages of history, he decides to take revenge upon the men who betrayed and killed his father, so he joins the Yorkist rebellions against Henry VII. Therefore, you see, my primary focus was not on how the lesser-known Henry Tudor came to power, but how the former monarch’s son survived during the transition of power after his father’s death and how he set out to avenge his father. Yet I could not tell Richard Plantagenet’s story without also telling Henry Tudor’s story, as the two are intertwined.
In your novel, Henry comes across as quite weak and even cowardly. How was Henry Tudor portrayed in history? What stands out to you about him and his reign?
Earlier in the novel Henry certainly lacks confidence. He is timid and nervous, lacking physical courage in battle and self-confidence in asserting his authority. After he becomes king he grows more assured, and with it more ruthless in his actions. There is a scene in the book where Henry, having embarked on a royal progress through his new kingdom, is sitting on raised throne in York looking out over the gathered masses, when he has an epiphany:
It dawned on Henry that he was no longer the young man, lacking in confidence, who had wrested the throne from King Richard. He had found a new vigour, a new confidence, a new strength. He was now the sole, unquestionable king of England, chosen by, and accountable only to Almighty God.
However, after this high point there still remains an element of doubt in Henry, mainly because of the trials and tribulations he has gone through all of his life. He remains dependent upon his astrologer to advise him on political matters, but also feels a need to ask him to foretell if his wife will ever truly love him. I think that historians can generally agree that Henry and Elizabeth’s was a love match that probably didn’t start out as such. Royal women were political pawns throughout this period of history and neither Henry nor Elizabeth would have known if their arranged marriage would become a love match. I have tried to portray the human, vulnerable side of Henry, but also show how his character changes as he gets older and he has to bear more responsibility as king. History has generally perceived Henry to be a clever, cautious, shrewd but miserly king. It is certainly true that he gathered immense wealth for the crown and was particularly avaricious in his latter years but Henry’s legacy is much more than that of an accountant-king. After many years of political strife and civil war in England Henry was able to control his nobles and extract from them vast amounts of money, but in doing so he was able to bequeath to his 17 year old son (Henry VIII) a kingdom at peace, a full treasury, and royal reputation restored at home and in continental Europe.
The King’s Son contains detailed references to weapons, battles, historical figures, clothing, food and even military maneuvers. How long did it take you to research this and what was your process for obtaining this level of detailed information?
I should disclose at this point that I was a history teacher and historian long before I became a published writer. I am an avid reader of history books, magazines, internet articles and any other sources of historical information. I have traced my family tree back to the 15th century and have spent hundreds of hours in archives reading and researching. I consider myself to have good all-round knowledge of the period in question. Interestingly though, although I had to read books and search the internet to research specific historical facts, it was generally the more mundane side of things that I spent the most time researching – what trees would have been growing at the side of the road? What food would have been served to an average person at a tavern? What would the sleeping arrangements look like for guests at an inn? What could you buy for different amounts of money? And so on.
Your enthusiasm for history is evident in The King’s Son. Have you always had an interest in history? Do you have a favorite period of history?
I have loved history as long as I can remember, so much so that by the age of 8 or 9 I had decided that I wanted to become a History Teacher when I grew up. This love of history was instilled and nurtured in me by my mum, who read to me and told me stories about historical characters from a very early age. When I could read myself, I would save up my pocket money each week and buy books from the Ladybird History Series. I still have all of these although they are very worn as my own children have also made good use of them. My mum and dad also took me and my brother on lots of trips to places of historic interest such as Warwick Castle, Bosworth Battlefield, Lindisfarne (Holy Island), or York Minster and the Shambles. I love all periods of history but my favourite is the medieval, and in particular the War of the Roses. I guess it helped growing up in Leicestershire, the county where Richard III met his fateful end and where he is buried. A lot of people don’t realise what a long and varied history Leicester has, from its time as a Roman town, occupation by the Vikings, importance in the medieval period, and siege of Leicester during the civil war etc but I guess that’s a whole different story.
The issue of church and country stood out to me as I was reading. Henry Tudor displayed a certain level of respect for the Catholic church and did not want to risk ex-communication. However, we find his son, not only willing to break with the Catholic church, but to form an entirely new church. What do you believe was the difference between father and son on this issue?
Both Henry’s were born and raised as Catholic. Henry VII remained a devout Catholic throughout his life but before he died in 1509 there was no alternative. Catholicism was the only recognised religion. Those who disputed the Church’s teaching were considered enemies of the faith or heretics. All jews had been expelled from England in 1290 and would not return until 1656, and other religious communities did not settle in the country until after the Tudor period. Everyone was Catholic, and Catholic teaching was pervasive in all aspects of people’s lives, including the king’s. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory were real places to the medieval mind and Catholic doctrine was believed and followed unquestioningly. This began to change in 1517 when a German priest named Martin Luther wrote to his bishop to protest against the sale of indulgences (a pardon for people’s sins). He enclosed a document he called Disputation on the Power of Indulgences, which came to be known as the Ninety-Five Theses. These challenged the Catholic Church’s role as intermediary between God and people, specifically when it came to the indulgence system. Luther’s protestations paved the way for others to challenge Catholic doctrine throughout Europe (hence the name Protestant – one who protests).
Henry VIII latched on to these new ideas about religion because they suited his needs at the time rather than because he believed in them. In 1521 he was awarded the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ by Pope Leo X for writing a pamphlet in defence of the Catholic Church against Martin Luther. Like his father, Henry VIII was intrinsically a Catholic in practice and belief. However, Henry was desperate for a male heir to carry on the Tudor bloodline and prevent the country from descending into the civil wars that had preceded his father’s reign. His wife Katherine of Aragon hadn’t given him a male heir and seemed increasingly unlikely to do so, and Henry’s mistress, Anne Boleyn, was pregnant. Henry, despite all efforts, was unable to persuade the pope to grant an annulment of his marriage, and the clock was ticking. The new Protestant ideas gave Henry the opportunity to break with the Catholic Church and declare himself head of the Church of England, so that he could have his marriage to Katherine of Aragon annulled and marry Anne Boleyn before she gave birth. The break with Rome was therefore politically rather than theologically motivated. Henry remained a Catholic even after he had separated from the Church in Rome. In 1539 Henry issued The Act of Six Articles which reaffirmed Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, upheld clerical celibacy, permitted private Masses, and stated that it was necessary to give confession. Henry also continued his own personal devotions in Latin and left instructions for requiem masses to be said for him in perpetuity following his death. When he died in 1547 England remained doctrinally Catholic despite Henry’s break from Rome. The Protestant Reformation only really gathered pace in his son, Edward VI’s, reign.
Richard of Eastwell is an interesting character to me. He is innocent and naïve yet we see him grasp complex issues and follow this innate sense of doing the right thing. There were many times I felt that he acted more like a king than the actual king. What are the traits that you believe make a good king or queen?
I think that depends upon the time period. What makes a good monarch now is very different to what made a good monarch in the medieval or Tudor period. If we’re talking about the period that Richard of Eastwell lived in then a good king would need to be someone who personally inspires others to follow him. He would need to be courageous and a good military leader. He would need to be a good administrator and he would also need to be pious. Although he is England’s most controversial king, I admire Richard III because he was all of these and more. He was a talented administrator and a reformer who introduced the bail system into England so that people couldn’t be imprisoned unfairly, he had laws translated into English so they could be read more widely, he encouraged foreign trade and the growth of the printing industry. He founded the College of Arms to oversee the legal process of heraldry. All of this in a reign of just 777 days! He defended the poor and was popular among the common people, especially in the north which he had defended during his brother’s reign. Richard III’s problem was that he lived at the end of the internecine civil war known to us today as the War of the Roses when there were rival claimants to the throne and nobles who were prepared to support these rivals for their own gain. Richard was betrayed by the Stanley’s at Bosworth otherwise I believe he would have gone on to have a long and successful reign, and wouldn’t have been cast as the villain in Shakespeare’s play.
I am currently working on a sequel to The King’s Son. Without giving away too much about the first book, Richard of Eastwell has unfinished business with the men who betrayed and killed his father. I plan to keep writing. When The King’s Son series has finished, I’ll write more historical fiction. I have a few characters in mind for future works but nothing set in stone yet. One book at a time so let’s get the sequel to The King’s Son finished first.
What advice do you have for other indie authors?
Keep writing and don’t give up! We all have different methods of writing. Some people write every day, some work fixed hours, some set themselves a target of so many words or pages a day. I work full-time so write when I can and when I’m motivated. It doesn’t matter which of these is the method you use, just keep at it and don’t lose sight of your goal. When you set out to write you knew you had it in you so don’t let a little hard work put you off. You can do it.
It is possible to design your own book cover, and format and publish a book yourself, but even if you do choose to do the whole thing yourself, the one major thing I would advise writers to do is have your book professionally edited. It really is worth it. I’ve seen so many indie books that have poor spelling, bad grammar, and really obvious mistakes in them. There’s nothing that will turn a reader off faster than this, even if the story itself is good. Also, whatever genre you write, know your subject and do your research. I have been asked to review historical fiction where there were inaccurate dates and facts, and obvious errors, which again is such a turn-off. A typo slipping through into your published book is just about forgivable but if your book is riddled with them, you’ll get poor reviews, a poor reputation, and few sales. Proofreading and editing are not luxuries, they are essential for any writer serious about getting published.
What is the one question I didn’t ask that you wish I had?
I thought you might ask me when and why I started writing but I have covered that in my guest author post.
Supporting Indie authors one thoughtful book review at a time!
