I made my agent cry!

In a good way.

I submitted a 40-page proposal for a novel about the early years of Marie Antoinette titled BECOMING. And she loved it so much she cried.

As I researched Marie Antoinette for my second nonfiction title NOTORIOUS ROYAL MARRIAGES, it made me hungry to learn more about her. And the more I read, the more I revised my opinion of her.

The Marie Antoinette I came to love and pity after reading a dozen biographies of her presents such delicious contradictions in terms that she is a novelist’s dream.

Possessed of a proud temperament, she was nonetheless desperate to please, and in doing so was often too eager to place her trust in the hands of those who were not in fact her confidantes, but who wished her harm instead. She would brook no contradiction, yet was vulnerable to criticism; a frivolous creature who was also the most generous member of the French royal family when it came to helping the poor. She was stubborn and willful, yet playful and adorably charming; regal, yet empathetic; loyal, yet confounded by the dual roles she was often expected to play. She was a natural beauty who according to her own mother was in dire need of painful physical improvements in order to enhance her looks; born to rule, yet shockingly unprepared to do so when the time came to fulfill her ultimate destiny.

Do you know a lot about Marie Antoinette? A little? What's your opinion of her?

The Cost of Tiaras Must Be Rising...

It's a royal scandal.


We all know that the cost of living never seems to keep pace with our incomes. And that's just as true for the House of Windsor, except that the public pays their bills. It now costs every Brit 69p (or about $1.15 as of this writing) to support the royal family in the style to which they have become accustomed for centuries.


Put in perspective, it's about the same amount (if not more) that Americans pay to keep the National Endowment for the Arts afloat.



But John Bull has chafed at the royal family's noblesse oblige with their hard-earned money for as long as the royals have been profligate with it. For example, in ROYAL AFFAIRS as well as in my upcoming NOTORIOUS ROYAL MARRIAGES, I note that in 1794 the Prince of Wales's debts had mounted to the exorbitant sum of £600,000 (nearly $80 million in today’s economy). It was his father George III's promise to discharge them the day young George wed that spurred him to marry his odiferous and slovenly first cousin Caroline of Brunswick. The union was an unmitigated disaster.


Fast-forward 215 years to today's royals. Evidently, last year Her Majesty's expenses (which include those of the royal family) amounted to $68.9 million (41.5 million pounds), which reflects an increase of $2.48 million (1.5 million pounds) over last year's tally. That breaks down to an additional 3p (5 cents) per subject.

Buckingham Palace















Taxpayer pounds pay for the royal family's travel expenses as well as for the upkeep of their umpteen homes, castles, and palaces.


So why the cost of living increase? Evidently, the RAF (which is a bit busy in Afghanistan) made fewer jets available to the Windsors last year so they often had to (gasp!) charter commercial aircraft at a moment's notice. You know how pricey that can be.


Add to that the $661,302 (400,000 pound) price of updating the royal family's web site this past February. Who did they use?? Perhaps I should recommend Authorbytes.com which did my new site; their prices are somewhat more reasonable.


And then there's the housecleaning! A veritable army of someones have to dust those priceless tchotchkes and vacuum all those Axminsters. Think about how many people the Windsors gainfully employ! $496,000 (300,000 pounds) was spent on scrubbing the royal abodes. Last year's food bills (my invitation to tea must have been lost in the post) ran to $827,209 (500,000 pounds).


Windsor Castle


And then there was the high cost of Her Majesty's garden parties: (another 400,000 pounds). Was the price of hats factored into the total?


None of these expenses include the tab for security.


But Elizabeth R is probably considering herself quite thrifty because in order to meet expenses, she supplemented the 7.9 million pounds ($13.9 million) of public money with 6 million pounds ($9.9 million) from a reserve fund she'd built up over the years.


The royals have never understood how to work within a budget as the rest of us mere mortals are compelled to do. And if she keeps the purse strings loose, she will run out of funds by 2012 as she prepares to celebrate her 60th year on the throne.


So, what do you think? Is 69p a small price to pay to maintain a national institution (the royal family), whose existence still sparks such romantic feelings in many of us on the other side of the puddle that we spend our own hard-earned money to visit that sceptered isle, shop at stores that have been granted a royal warrant, if only to take home the shopping bag with the crest, purchase tea towels and coffee mugs with royal images and insignias, and tour Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle? Is it worth supporting the royal family because their existence brings in more tourist dollars per year than it costs the British taxpayer?


Or should a stricter budget be imposed to teach the House of Windsor a lesson in economy?

Or is it time to cut those tiara wearing welfare recipients loose?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Royal Updates

Hitting the shelves in January 2010, my second "Royal" work of historical nonfiction for NAL will indeed be titled...

NOTORIOUS ROYAL MARRIAGES: A Juicy Journey Through Nine Centuries of Dynasty, Destiny, and Desire.

Marie Antoinette

Louis XVI

They didn't go for the Rembrandt cover I suggested. However, I've seen the cover art they chose, though, and think it's "grabby" and fun. Since it may not be finalized I won't post it yet. It's a watercolor, and judging from the clothing worn by the man and woman, it's clearly from the 1780s or 1790s. So much for the "nine centuries" of the subtitle, but I guess they had to pick one of them!

And it's true, NOTORIOUS ROYAL MARRIAGES does cover some of the great unions of the 18th century: the puerile Peter III and the powerful Catherine the Great; Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI;

Catherine the Great

Tsar Peter III

George IV, when still Prince of Wales; a miniature painted by George Cosway, c. 1792


the two marriages of the future George IV of England--his illicit one in 1785 with the Catholic widow Maria Fitzherbert

Maria Fitzherbert

and his 1795 marriage to his first cousin, the dumpy and odiferous Caroline of Brunswick.

Caroline of Brunswick

as well as Napoleon Bonaparte and his first wife, Josephine Beauharnais.

Napoleon

Josephine

So we do spend a lot of time in the 18th century.

I'm really looking forward to the January 2010 release of NOTORIOUS ROYAL MARRIAGES. If you have any questions, I'd love to hear them!

Royal Titles

Literally, this time. My title suggestions for my second work of historical nonfiction were sent to my editor this past Monday.

For those of you who are curious about how the wild and wacky world of publishing works, my suggestions--or at least the one my editor liked best--must be vetted by a number of her colleagues, including those in the sales and marketing forces. They want to be sure that any book title is "grabby" enough for bookstores to want to place hefty orders.

So, at the moment anyway, the title of my next work of nonfiction may very well be . . .

(drum roll) . . .

NOTORIOUS ROYAL MARRIAGES: A Juicy Journey Through Nine Centuries of Dynasty, Destiny, and Desire.

This title is meant to suggest that it's a great companion book to my maiden work of nonfiction, ROYAL AFFAIRS: A Lusty Romp Through the Extramarital Adventures That Rocked the British Monarchy.

I'm hoping they select a "companionable" cover image as well. Here's the one they chose for ROYAL AFFAIRS.

And here's the one I hope they choose for NOTORIOUS ROYAL MARRIAGES:

What do you think?

Happy New Year to all! May '09 be fine!

ROYAL AFFAIRS promotion events

Last Thursday evening I was delighted to visit the venerable Book Revue in Huntington, Long Island, the kind of independent bookstore that makes you want to get lost in the stacks for days.

What a lively, intelligent crowd! After I read from ROYAL AFFAIRS, we had a terrific Q&A about some of the royals themselves, about my writing process, and whether I prefer writing nonfiction or fiction. For the record, I love both; each presents its own set of challenges and rewards.

This coming Monday I'll be speaking with one of Dianne DeFonce's book clubs at the Borders in Fairfield, CT. I'll make another appearance at her Borders location in November, as part of a panel on historical fiction, wearing my nom de plume'd hat as Amanda Elyot.

And in October, I'll make the happy journey to Camden, NJ to speak with a book club hosted at a local library.

I absolutely love visiting book clubs and speaking with readers, whether in person or online. If you belong to a book club, I'd be delighted to hear from you. If it is located in the NY Metro area, it would be lots of fun for me to chat with your group in person. Feel free to get in touch with me here, and we'll take it from there.

In the meantime . . . happy reading . . . and remember to support your local libraries, if not with your pocketbook then with your vote. Nothing could be more patrotic than echoing our nation's founders by keeping the First Amendment a cherished right.

Apocryphal Events: Fact or Fiction?

Marie Antoinette (1755-1793)

I kicked off this blog with a post titled "Just the Facts, Ma'am" about my experience researching and writing ROYAL AFFAIRS. I joked that because I came to nonfiction as a multipublished novelist, it was a challenge not to be able to make things up.

One thing I can assure my readers is that, apart from the way I structured ROYAL AFFAIRS, nothing in the survey of these scandalous liaisons "that rocked the British monarchy" for more than nine centuries, came from my oh-so-fertile imagination. I read numerous historical biographies and articles by respected historians and academics. And, while I tried at all costs to avoid doing so, it's certainly possible that I may have inadvertently included what I like to call "bad history" here and there.

"Bad history" (I did make up the phrase) is how I term stories that have been handed down through the ages, repeated from biographer to biographer over the centuries as though they are factual. However, oftentimes a biographer will refer to a shopworn legend, such as Marie Antoinette saying "Let them eat cake" (Qu'ils mangent de la brioche) and then immediately disclaim it, pointing out who really said it and in what context.

On other occasions I've seen biographers discuss an event or anecdotal bit of information about an historical personage, followed by the statement that its accuracy has never sufficiently been proven, or is in doubt. Whether Eleanor of Aquitaine rode to the Crusades barebreasted (or not) like an Amazon warrior queen, is a fine example. It turns out it's partly true (no, not the barebreasted part), based on an eyewitness account of Eleanor astride her horse, and quickly became elaborated by those seeking to discredit a queen who they wished to paint as a brazen, adulterous slut.

Eleanor of Aquitaine (1122-1204)

Those are important distinctions; and when I've discovered during my research that something we all have been taught as schoolchildren probably never happened I make the decision for my own nonfiction--to omit any reference to the event, or to bring it up and include the disclaimer.

For example, for centuries it was popularly believed that King Edward II of England, a notorious "sodomite," was killed by the insertion of a hot poker into his anus, during his imprisonment. Or smothered by a table so he couldn't wriggle about, followed by the hot poker. Various versions of this gruesome death were recorded and repeated throughout the ages, from Sir Thomas More to the 20th century academic, A.L. Rowse. In the ROYAL AFFAIRS entry on Edward, I refer to the legendary story of the king's death as well as all doubts, discrepancies, and disclaimers regarding its veracity.

Edward II of England (1284-1327[?])

So I can promise my readers that I didn't invent anything I refer to in ROYAL AFFAIRS. All of the information I include was gleaned from the dozens of sources I read in the course of my research. If an historical biographer didn't refer to (or know) whether an event was in fact merely apocryphal, or fictional (or introduced a refutation of it), it was not possible for me to know otherwise.

Now I am neck-deep in research for a companion book to ROYAL AFFAIRS. The working title is WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT? Notorious Royal Marriages from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Camilla Parker Bowles. I face the same challenges, sifting through centuries of history, scanning for the personal opinions and political agendas of the monks, lovers, bosom companions, staffers, journalists, politicians, academics, and historians -- and sometimes the royals themselves -- who have written or spoken about the sovereigns I plan to include in Notorious Royal Marriages. With one hand raised and the other firmly placed on an encyclopedia (not Wikipedia), I can assure my readers that to the best knowledge that extensive research can yield, the book will contain ... Just the Facts, Ma'am.

SHE GETS PUSHY OVER 'AFFAIRS'

I had to copy this tidbit from the "Page Six" gossip column of the New York Post (August 11, 2008):

PRINCESS Pushy, a k a Princess Michael of Kent, has gone to war against New York Social Diary blogger David Patrick Columbia for reporting this week that her husband is having an affair.

Prince Michael, 66, who was 16th in line to the British throne before he married the Catholic divorcée in 1978, was photographed at the ballet last month with attractive, Danish-born Marianne Krex, 36.

Columbia reported, "The prince has a new girlfriend. With the emphasis on the 'new,' meaning this isn't the first."

The princess, 63, claimed to Britain's Mail on Sunday that Krex was just a family friend.
"At the last moment, the princess couldn't accompany him that evening, and so, says the princess, she suggested her husband take Marianne in her place," columnist Richard Kay reported.

But Columbia says the lovebirds don't only go to the ballet but also "rendezvous at a bar called Julie's in Notting Hill." He also links the prince to ballerina Bryony Brind and American artist Lucy Weber.

Columbia quotes from a diary Weber kept about the prince, whom she saw for eight years: "He loves sex pure, unadulterated. He thinks about it quite a bit during his working hours - loves white suspenders [garters], beige or tan. His sexual senses are keen."

Princess Michael has "extramarital interests" as well, Columbia writes, and was photographed with Russian billionaire Mikhail Kravchenko last year in Venice, where they had adjoining $4,000-a-night hotel suites.

The royal couple is known as the Rent-a-Kents because they get paid by wealthy social climbers to be their guests.

Princess Michael also earns money by giving lectures. But demand for her speeches plunged in May 2004, when The Post reported that she told a table of high-spirited black diners at Da Silvano in Manhattan to "go back to the colonies."

Princess Michael ought to know a lot about royal affairs. She is the author of Cupid and the King: Five Royal Paramours, a compilation of historical biography of five royal mistresses, including two ladies whose scandalous liaisons are profiled in ROYAL AFFAIRS--the actresses Nell Gwyn and Lillie Langtry.

By the way, Da Silvano is one of the best Italian restaurants in NYC, and is always mobbed. Silvano himself is a charming host. He doesn't need her custom.