Review: King John's Right Hand Lady by Sharon Bennett Connolly

Synopsis: In a time when men fought and women stayed home, Nicholaa de la Haye held Lincoln Castle against all-comers. Not once, but three times, earning herself the ironic praise that she acted ‘manfully’.Nicholaa gained prominence in the First Baron’s War, the civil war that followed the sealing of Magna Carta in 1215. Although recently widowed, and in her 60s, in 1217 Nicholaa endured a siege that lasted over three months, resisting the English rebel barons and their French allies. The siege ended in the battle known as the Lincoln Fair, when 70-year-old William Marshal, the Greatest Knight in Christendom, spurred on by the chivalrous need to rescue a lady in distress, came to Nicholaa’s aid.

Nicholaa de la Haye was a staunch supporter of King John, remaining loyal to the very end, even after most of his knights and barons had deserted him.

A truly remarkable lady, Nicholaa was the first woman to be appointed sheriff in her own right. Her strength and tenacity saved England at one of the lowest points in its history. Nicholaa de la Haye is one woman in English history whose story needs to be told…

~ ~ ~

My initial problem is with the title: King John's Right Hand Lady.

Whilst the historical Nicholaa / Nicola / Nichola was a loyal supporter of King John, to say that she was his "right hand" - his "Sir Hiss" or his "Sheriff of Nottingham" to use more populist references - would be highly incongruous. Roger of Wendover's "abbetors of iniquity" list does not mention Nicholaa, and at Runnymeade it is Archibishop Langton, William Marshall and Hubert de Burgh who are acknowledged as his advisors. So I am at a loss as to where Nicholaa sits in all of this - even more so when the author claims both Nicholaa and John "worked in harmony".  We need to remember that hers was a "deathbed appointment" by a King eager to shore up support for his infant son and heir at a time when said monarch found a distinct lack of support from all the usual suspects.

That she was a remarkable woman in her right, there is no doubt.  However, its all well and good to bring forth a tome on a notable person, but to ascribe to them more than their due is being disingenuous to the reader and playing fast, loose and false with the subject at hand.

Now for the rest: the tome contains lots of events not directly linked to Nicholaa; lots of repetition of information; and lots of information of family and familial connections. If you have read any of Bennett Connolly's other books on the period you will notice that they all cross over into each other, containing the same information, on the same people, over the same period. "But this her area afterall" I hear you say. Sure - that's fine, but each tome doesn't need to feel like it needs to include the previous ones as part of it. The chapter on the "legacy" was superfluous and was most likely taken from her previous tome on the de Warennes.

The extent of research is evident ... literally! But there is just not enough on Nicholaa to cover the 180 odd ages of relevant text. History is littered with many similar such stories if you go searching for them - this is just one.