Your Questions

Q

Dear Mr Cornwell, I have just read the first chapter of the Last Kingdom and I noticed that you have called an Ealdorman the same thing as an Earl. I was under the impression that they did differ. I thought that an Ealdorman was chosen by the King and did not have an hereditary position, it was up to the King to present the title to the Ealdorman's son or another candidate. This is very similar to the way the crown was passed as after Eathelred's death the crown passed to Alfred and not Eathelred's sons. Anyway I was under the impression that the word Earl comes from the Danish Jarl and it is an hereditary position and it did not appear properly in Anglo-Saxon Britain until Cnut's invasion in 1016. Also the powers granted to the individual differ on what they can do with regards to calling out the fyrd and various other things such as their position on the Witan. I was wondering where the information for this book came from and I also would like to know if there will be many parallels drawn between Uthred's writing and that of asser's? (apologies about the spelling but I am slightly dyslexic). Matthew Bowman

Submitted July 14, 2004

A

You'll understand, when you read the rest of the book, why Uhtred calls himself an earl which is, as you rightly say, a Danish rank and did not enter English usage until Cnut - but there is a reason!! Ealdormen? Some were appointed by the king, but many families were so powerful (like the real-life Uhtred family) that they arrogated the rank and no king was strong enough to take it away. There certainly are hereditary ealdormen - lots of them - though doubtless the kings would have preferred it otherwise.

Q

Dear Mr Cornwell, I have just read the first chapter of the Last Kingdom and I noticed that you have called an Ealdorman the same thing as an Earl. I was under the impression that they did differ. I thought that an Ealdorman was chosen by the King and did not have an hereditary position, it was up to the King to present the title to the Ealdorman's son or another candidate. This is very similar to the way the crown was passed as after Eathelred's death the crown passed to Alfred and not Eathelred's sons. Anyway I was under the impression that the word Earl comes from the Danish Jarl and it is an herediatry position and it did not appear properly in Anglo-Saxon Britain until Cnut's invasion in 1016. Also the powers granted to the individual differ on what they can do with regards to calling out the fyrd and various other things such as their position on the Witan. I was wondering where the information for this book came from and I also would like to know if there will be many parallels drawn between Uthred's writing and that of asser's? (apologies about the spelling but I am slightly dyslexic). Matthew Bowman

Submitted July 14, 2004

A

You'll understand, when you read the rest of the book, why Uhtred calls himself an earl which is, as you rightly say, a Danish rank and did not enter English usage until Cnut - but there is a reason!! Ealdormen? Some were appointed by the king, but many families were so powerful (like the real-life Uhtred family) that they arrogated the rank and no king was strong enough to take it away. There certainly are hereditary ealdormen - lots of them - though doubtless the kings would have preferred it otherwise.

Q

Thank you for improving my vocabulary. I do know that I need a dictionary for some of the words. One does not seem to be in the dictionary. It appears in the book after Trafalgar when he is trying to sell his commission. The word is "fungled" or similar. Sorry, I do not have the book with me and I only just discovered your site and this word occasionaly pops up in my head and is a constant irritant! Please help. Philip Norman

Submitted July 14, 2004

A

Fungible! You need a new dictionary! Something fungible is an object that can be exchanged - either for money or barter - something with intrinsic value. Sharpe's commission is not fungible - poor man.

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell, I'm currently reading the Winter King (actually, I'm listening to it -- Books on Tape are wonderful things). I'm enjoying the book very much, especially the highly original treatment of the various characters from the myth. Have you ever considered writing a novel about Charlemagne? Michael Newman

Submitted July 13, 2004

A

That's an easy one. No.

Q

Sorry to bother you again, this is the second time in 3 days that I've asked you a question! I was just looking at the Sean Bean website about an old rumour (about 2000) concerning a Sharpe Christmas Special, and it quoted you as saying "...(as) to the question of whether Sharpe will ever be filmed again...I have to give the usual answer, I suspect not. I think the Indian books pose too many problems, but there is a real chance that they will make a Sharpe Christmas special, but not, I think, for this coming Christmas - it will be for 2001 if it happens at all. There does seem to be some real enthusiasm for the project and more importantly, a realistic chance of raising the money, so I've sent off a story and can only live in hope. It also depends on Sean Bean agreeing, but I have no reason to think he won't." I was just wondering if you could tell us what the story was about, and that if it never makes it to the small screen would it be published as a novel or a short story? Once again, thanks for your time, and I hope you had a good holiday! Dan Price

Submitted July 13, 2004

A

I can't even remember that! But there's still hope of another Sharpe TV episode, so keep things crossed.

Q

I am in the middle of an on-going discussion about the practicality of women in ancient warfare (all of it starting with Hollywood's "King Arthur" and their depiction of Guinevere as a warrior queen capable of cutting a swath through ranks of male warriors without breaking a sweat). Now I discover that you have apparently done the same in Excalibur (I haven't read your Arthurian tales, just Sharpe, Starbuck and the Grail Quest stories). I would be genuinely interested in finding out why you chose to go that route? I'm curious to learn if you have found some reference to this being true of Guinevere. Rogan

Submitted July 13, 2004

A

Guinevere doesn't indulge in any hand to hand fighting in my books - though she makes a considerable contribution to the British victory at Mount Badon. Why go that route? Because I like strong women characters, I guess.

Q

Just finished Heretic. Great book. Good and fast paced storytelling and a wonderful ending to the trilogy. Missed Jeanette a bit, but Genevieve replaced her well as a female character. I was afraid that Robbie might die because he made a few wrong decisions and I was happy to read that he survived the battles and the plague. I was sorry for Jake. Liked Jake ever since that 'he looked like something out of a nightmare' comment in Harlequin. But he had a good death, and died fighting. As always, the battle scenes were awesome. What I liked especially about the last battle was that there were not as much people involved as a large scale battle and thus one could follow most of the individuals' fighting moves throughout it. Guy deserved what he got. There was that good detailed description of his armour before he went to battle. What I also liked throughout the books was that if there's some armour part or weapon that the reader may not be familiar with, you give a clear description of what it is. (' a piece of armour that protects the neck and the Coredor's falchion in Heretic) Wouldn't more than one trebuchet have been more effective then a single gun? I know that the gun's projectiles were more effective, but trebuchets could have been triggered more frequently, that's why I thought about this while reading. I hope there will be more books about Thomas in the future and look forward to reading The Last Kingdom. Thanks for your work. Andreas Azzopardi

Submitted July 13, 2004

A

Both are hugely unwieldy, of course, and possibly the trebuchet would have been more effective, but I suspect that everyone concerned was excited by the thought of the newness of artillery - a wonder weapon which they believe must win the day!

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell: I have now read all your historical fiction. I love your work, and hate having to wait until October for your new book. Thanks for so many great days... Please consider writing about Francis Marion, "the Swamp Fox," a fascinating American Revoloutionary War-era soldier from the Carolinas who, like Wellington, had Banestre Tarelton as an adversary. With your affinity for stories from the early American south, I would love to see you take on this character! Jeff Hill

Submitted July 13, 2004

A

Maybe! One day. Not soon. You're right - he is fascinating - as is Banestre Tarleton, but my plate is very full at the moment so he's on a very long finger.

Q

I hope you enjoyed your holiday. I am a huge fan of your Sharpe series and it is regarding those books that I have a question. Was there ever a name given the the child that Sharpe had with Lady Grace Hale? I suspect that the answer may be no, but thank you for your time anyway. Nicola Donald

Submitted July 13, 2004

A

Not that I know of! Probably called it Bernard, and it died.

Q

I've been reading the delightful Sharpe books in (historical) chronological order, and am struck by the many instances where a book written in the 1980s makes reference to a past event, which is then described in detail in a story written much later. I am thinking in particular of the flogging episode. When you wrote the earlier series, did you anticipate that such events would provide material for books to be written later, or did you insert these references in a second edition of the earlier novels? However you did it, the effect is quite fascinating! Peter Fish

Submitted July 13, 2004

A

I think it was accidental! I never did intend to write the flogging episode, so it was fortunate I'd mentioned it in the later books when I came to write the earlier (not sure that makes sense, but I hope you know what I mean).