AW: During the early 1970s, after attending teacher training college with a view to teaching history, I spent four years
researching and writing a book about Henry VIII’s wives, but this was rejected by publishers on the grounds that it was too
long—something of an understatement, since it filled 1,024 manuscript pages typed on both sides and without double
spacing. In 1991, a much revised and edited version of this manuscript was published as my second book, The Six Wives of
Henry VIII.
In 1981, I wrote a biography of Jane Seymour, which was rejected by Weidenfeld and Nicholson as being—wait for it—too
short. The publishers, however, put me in touch with my present firm of literary agents who, in the course of a conversation
about which subject I should write about, rejected my suggestion of a book about Lady Diana Spencer (who became
Princess of Wales that year) on the grounds that people would soon lose interest in her! Instead, it was agreed that I should
write a biography of Isabella of France, wife of Edward II, but this was never finished because the births, very close
together, of my children intervened in 1982 and 1984, and I had very little time for writing.
In 1987, it occurred to me that my dictionary of genealogical details of British royalty—which I had revised eight times
over twenty-two years—might be of interest to others, so I rearranged the contents once more, into chronological order.
Britain’s Royal Families became my first published book, in 1989, from The Bodley Head, and the rest of the story is—dare
I say it?—history!
How do you go about writing your books?
AW: I research from contemporary sources as far as possible; fortunately, most of those for the periods I have written about
are in print. I use secondary sources to see what views historians take on my chosen subjects, but in the end I make up my
own mind, basing my conclusions as far as possible on contemporary evidence.
I transcribe my information into chronological order, under date headings, so that when I have finished my research, I have
a very rough draft of the book. This method has the curious advantage of highlighting discrepancies and often new
interpretations of events, chronological patterns, and unexpected facts emerge. Anyone who has read The Princes in the
Tower will know how startlingly well this method of research worked for that particular book.
How would you describe your role as a historian?
AW: I am not a revisionist historian. I do not start with a theory and then try to fit the facts around it. I draw my conclusions
from the known facts. As my research progresses, I gain some idea of the viewpoint I will take, but I am always ready to
alter it if need be.
You have to consider the known facts in detail and avoid supposition in order to get as near to the truth as possible. You
must not only take into account what is written about someone or something, but who wrote it, since many sources are
biased, prejudiced, or unreliable. Where possible, I verify my facts from reliable sources only, and if the only source is
suspect, I say so.
What is your aim in writing history?
AW: I want to bring history and its characters to life by including as much personal detail as possible, by inferring new ideas
from the known facts, and by researching the political and social background so thoroughly that my subjects are set in an
authentic context. Many people have told me that my books read like novels. Perhaps this is because, when I write, I feel I
am really there, so strong is my feeling for my subject. On occasion, I have been so moved by the events I have been
describing that I have felt like crying. The old adage that truth is stranger than fiction is more than true for me, and if (as a
couple of recent reviewers have complained) it is old-fashioned to recount history as a rattling good story—which in many
ways it is—then I am happy to be thought outdated.
When you were researching and writing about Henry VIII, did you come to like him?
AW: Surprisingly enough, yes! Actually, I’ve liked him for a long time. I’ve always felt that he has been greatly misjudged
and perceived as a caricature of his real self. Therefore, this book is a sympathetic study that looks at events from the King’s
viewpoint. For example, most historians have focused on Anne Boleyn during the days leading up to her execution. I’ve
focused on Henry. Few people have taken into account the fact that his only son was dying a lingering death from
tuberculosis at this time.
I think, when it comes to historical characters, you have to judge them by the values of their own time, not by ours. Henry
was no tyrant, as Richard III was; only in his last years did he become the fat, diseased autocrat of popular perception. In