I wanted to contact you to thank you for the hours of reading pleasure you have given me. You have given me an interest in history, so much so that in 2013 I walked the Pilgrims Trail in France and Spain with off shoots to Sharp points and in 2014 I walked and drove in Portugal tracing the campaign.

Don’t get the idea I only read Sharp, I have read all your books and I mean ALL and most more than once.

I do however wonder why you don’t continue some obvious lines, I would like to read more of Starbuck and his Regiment.

I did have a thought, if Sharps’ Wifes’ Uncle died and Sharps wife was his only surviving relative,  if Sharp did not divorce his Wife (almost impossible in that day and age) and his Wife died leaving a child, would not that give Sharp Locus Standi to apply for Guardianship of his Wife’s child which would presumptively be his child and therefore control of her uncles ill gotten gains?

I do think you would could look at the Canadian and Australian Armies in France in World War One for another area of interest or perhaps the Special Air Service (my old Regiment albeit in Australia and service in Asia) or Popskis’ Private Army in World War Two? If a nautical flavour attracts the small boats of World War TWo especially in the Med and Adriatic were colourful both Axis (Snellboot / E Boat) and Allied (Fairmiles)

Thank you, I had a friend now deceased, who was a film maker and said something I think applies to any like endeavour that the aim is to “suspend the disbelief for long enough to allow the audience to experience the story”

Bye

Anthony Burke

Hi,

I have recently read the Sharpe series and thoroughly enjoyed them but I have one niggle on the Jane Sharpe plotline. Given the law at the time which said that everything within a marriage belonged automatically to the husband, with the wife not even having a legal status in her own right, why did Sharpe not just go in and take everything back? I was also curious how everything had been taken away from Sharpe after the death of Lady Grace; it never seems to have been clearly explained?

Kath Bonson