I don’t think she was as emotionally involved as Weir portrays because she would have been too aware of her position, and the possibility of her acceding to the throne (unlikely in the reign of Edward VI but still possible). There are rumours in the historical world about the nature of that relationship, but I think that Weir over-emphasised Elizabeth’s emotional involvement in the affair. I think that the main part of The Lady Elizabeth which I questioned was Elizabeth’s relationship with Thomas Seymour. History shouldn’t be twisted to make a good story. In history based on fact, like the life of Elizabeth I, the facts should come first, before the telling of a good story. A historical novelist should adhere to history, but use imagination to fill in any gaps. You can tell that she has done her research. At the end of the novel, she adds a section making clear which sections were her own imagination. In my opinion, a historical novelist should stick to the facts of history as far as possible, and this is what Weir tries to do.

What kind of obligation do you think a historical novelist has to the facts of history? Should a writer let facts stand in the way of telling a good story? Are there parts of The Lady Elizabeth where you felt that Weir erred on one side or the other? Alison Weir talks about balancing the duties of novelist and historian. ‘The Lady Elizabeth’ by Alison Weir (2008)ġ.

The lady elizabeth by alison weir