The wrong Lady Anne….!

For Honour and Fame - Nigel Saul

Having just acquired Nigel Saul’s For Honour and Fame, about chivalry in England from 1066 to 1500, one of my first actions was (as always!) to go to the pages that refer to Richard III. Well, it’s second nature to any Ricardian, I think.

So, on page 279, I read:

“. . .A generation later there was to be another, still greater, heiress who was to play a role in the preservation of specifically chivalric memory. This was Anne Neville, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, and sister and heiress of his son Henry, duke of Warwick, who died young. Anne’s self- appointed task in the last years of her life was to cherish and protect the memory of her late father, one of the Lancastrian monarchy’s greatest captains. . .”

Um. . .eh? For a moment the penny didn’t drop, and I couldn’t fit Anne Neville with such a claim. Then I realized it was one of those banes of all writers, a monumental blooper. It was not Anne Neville who was meant, but her mother, Anne Beauchamp.


So, the mix-up of Lady Annes is an error by either Nigel Saul, or his publisher, Bodley Head. Oh, and the book then goes on to mention Richard III’s “seizure of the throne”, which did not impress this incurable Ricardian. He has two further, brief, mentions. So, if you’re looking for books that deal in any meaningful way with Richard III, give this one a miss.


  1. Oh. My. Gawd. My jaw dropped, reading that. These people call themselves historians! And their publishers presumably have so-called editors! AAAAARGH! Even if I wasn’t a Ricardian, I’d skip this book because I loathe this sort of carelessness! Call themselves professionals? I don’t think so!


  2. Anne Neville was NEVER a Beauchamp. Her father was Richard Neville. And I have yet to hear a highborn medieval lady referred to, simultaneously, by both her maiden and married name. The way these days is to always refer to them by their maiden name. Anne Beauchamp is always Anne Beauchamp, and Anne Neville is always Anne Neville. Well, so I understand.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. But… but… traditionally published books are always free from errors, perfectly edited, and of superior quality…

    Seriously, do they not know the first thing about good historiography?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Certainly people, writers, historians make mistakes. But these kind of significant mistakes should be caught no later than during editing. It would also be helpful to avoid or at least make them less blatend by adding year of birth/death in (…) right after the name. In other words if such a mistake is not caught, at least you can tell whom they are actually talking about.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: