Good afternoon sir:
I hope this note finds you well. I am largely writing about your recent “1356”.
First, I genuinely appreciate your accessibility. Many people, well-known for whatever reason, insulate themselves from the world. Your openness is refreshing.
I very much liked this book, as I liked the Revolutionary War story (my favorite–I lived in Maine for quite a while) and the King Alfred series. I think what I found most appealing was the balance. Many similar books tell their stories in great geopolitical sweeps—they’re too ‘big’. Others tell a lot about the people, but not the ‘why’; they’re too ‘small’.
I didn’t much care for the sanctimonious ‘cop-out’, though. Many stories also employ this–the finder of the secret or the artifact elect to keep the secret. Your character commends two such artifacts to God. This is the same God who, through Moses, told people “Thou shalt not lie”, through Muhammad said much the same thing and sent his son (if you believe) to tell people “Know you the truth and the truth shall make you free”. I’d much rather read an author’s speculations about who   how a discovery might make the world different. Not a criticism—I’m neither that arrogant nor that pretentious–just an observation.
I have some questions, too, that need an expert historian’s ‘take’. First, why is Prince Edward addressed as “Your Majesty” and King Jean as “Your Highness”? I thought “Your Majesty” wasn’t even used until the reign of Henry VIII in the early 15s and in any event, I’d question a lower honorific for a higher-ranking noble.
Next, I saw your financial comparison in which you try to figure the modern equivalent of the ransoms. You note that ale now costs 3,000 times what it did in the 13s. I tried running a comparison using the value of ‘pound sterling’ and got between 80 and 130 times, depending on the price of the ale and the value of silver. How did you arrive at your figure?
Finally, you (along with many historians and the preparers of the souvenir tapestries of the British monarchy) credit Alfred with being the first king of ‘England’. I read a history of the British monarchy that traced this lineage back to the Romano-British rulers of the 3s. Alfred assumed the reign of part of England and died still ruling just that part. The Danes still had a presence in England at the conclusion of his reign, so why is he viewed that way?
I appreciate your attention to these and look forward to another trip through time.
Take good care.

Respectfully,

Howard S. Shwartz