Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1:52 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Olga said
Neil, I really don’t get offended easily, don’t worry about it, I’m just very opinionated. Any knowledge of Tudor history I have, which I must stress is not a lot, mind, came after I read PG’s books, and then from her bibliographies. I didn’t know much about Anne or Henry’s six wives at all. They were a good source of information before I started looking around the internet. And then here.
Of course she does like Weir, and having read Weir’s Six Wives after I read TOBG I realised she used that book heavily as an influence. Not a good choice IMO
I think a lot of trouble come from the fact that a lot of people who read SWMNBN and Weir’s books take them a sacrosanct. It’s an easy mistake to make and I’m guilty of it myself. However if you just view their books as storybooks it does make things a lot easier and less likely to grate on your nerves.. I do enjoy a lot historical novels and am very partial to Jean Plaidy, but there is a fine line between fact and fiction, sometimes that line is forgotten and you read something in a fictional book and think I didn’t know Anne had 2 heads and Henry only cut off one…only to realise later when your’ve had a sulk and perhaps a hissy fit or 2 that the book you were reading is just a figment of the writers fevered imagination.
For factual books you can’t go far wrong with Historians like the incompable Starkey whose books can be brutal at times but at least you know that what he says is based firmly in fact. I must admit I did like Lady Antonia Frazer’s book on Henry and his Wives, some of the things she said in it I would question but on the whole I did like it, and to be fair Weir’s book about Henry wasn’t too bad, I won’t say I enjoyed it but it was passable.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:15 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Oh I have Weir’s book on Henry too. I was just so annoyed after I finished Six Wives I didn’t want to read any others that were ‘older’.
I actually have decided unless the books are pre-1900 or post 1990- with the exception of Ives- I am going to tread very carefully. I’ve being trying to pick this book Ladies in Waiting up, by Anne Somerset, for ages. It’s out of print, but I finally managed to find one. I started reading and it was interesting enough at the start, then it got to Anne and mentioned how her ladies copied her dress of long sleeves to hide her sixth finger and a high collar to cover her mole. I nearly threw the book across the room. Amazingly the damned thing has a citation number every three paragraphs. Sometimes you have to go with what they had at the time, I think Ives and Starkey have blown a whole lot of things open. But then there is some stuff in Ives I found Julia Fox has discounted after doing research on Jane Boleyn. No one had bothered to research Jane properly before.
In fact you probably have to read every new book to see if anyone has discovered anything new. Often it’s not the case but sometimes I think I have something decided, and then another historian changes my mind.
12:01 pm
April 17, 2012
Offline
The first thing i ever encountered about Tudor england and Anne was the movie The other Boleyn Girl, which now i see to be even a terrible recreation of Philippas Book, which i love, I am a writer also, tho nowhere near the same ballpark, i write science fiction lol, but i read the red queen thinking it was bland and awful, but when i read the other boleyn girl i was shocked at how good it is. Not absolutely historically, but literary wise. Say what you will about her, she is an amazing writer, she conjures up scenes and sites and even smells that you cannot feel or imagine in history books. She makes visual aspects of Tudor life that i would not even have considered had I not read her books. I must admit that when i read it tho, i was often seeing the scenes with Anne as something from a day time soapy (mostly the face scratching lol) but it was beautifully evocative. She does know her history, but she is writing “fiction” cos that’s the section i picked the book up from in my local bookstore. And i have to say i cracked up at the end of the credits of the film the other boleyn girl, cos it said “the characters and events in this film are fictitious and any comparison between them and real people or events are purely coincidental” LOL its a standard disclaimer but the irony just cracked me up!
And about the witchcraft thing, i have often tried to raise this subject around the site, the word is archaeic, but so is the idea. I believe personally that some people, especially women do have a certain something that others dont have, not just a glow, but a supernatural seeming abilty to affect and manipulate the world around them, for their own good, or for the good of others. It is the belief that these women are “witches” and in league with the devil that is preposterous. My family are from Gypsy stock on one side, and decendents of the plantagenets, who are quoted to be of devil stock, and on the other side, my family are russian gypsies also ( i use the term gypsy loosely) and the women in our family have this kind of presence about us. It sounds weird, but we are often described as having a ‘glow’, the same term used to describe Anne. Im not trying to make any claim of my own, Im just saying that it is not hard for me to imagine that she did have the jeunesse qua she was famous for, and that perhaps when she applied herself she could make things happen, but it doesnt mean she was a witch, or friends with the man downstairs, and it continually amazes me that since the beginning of christianity that a woman with these traits and abilities are considered to be evil! It used to be that these people were called Druids, medicine men, shamens, the problem with christianity and catholicism is the disclusion of everyone and everything that just doesnt fit in with their ideas of what is in the club. I reckon that’s probably what pissed anne off about the catholic church and caused her to become a reformist and advocate for religious change. I think Henry was a bit sick of all the boxes he had to tick on a daily basis to make the pope and his minions happy, and anne gets blamed for making him make “the change” but i think that change was the best thing he ever did, and why he should be famous, not because he was a terrible husband, although he was A TERRIBLE HUSBAND!!
12:07 pm
April 17, 2012
Offline
Oh and the Mary thing, i think anne was insanely jealous of both KOA and her daughter Mary. Perhaps in one of her jealous rants and hissy fits she did say alot of inflammatory and even “treasonous” statements, that probably she regretted alot when she was on trial. Whether she meant them or not is anyones guess. I do think there is and will always be alot of bad information about her, at the end of the day, she was just a woman, with a heavy cross to bare (no offence meant by the euphamism) and in an awful position, with a husband whom she waited many precious years for, losing her youth and innocence and happiness. And she had a temper, but how that made her a famous ‘witch’ is lost on me….
2:32 am
August 25, 2012
Offline
I have actually enjoyed a few of PG’s novels, but the reader definitely must let go of what factual information they know of the era, take her work with a grain of salt, and take it for what it is- historical FICTION. Her work hasn’t nearly aggravated me as much as Weir’s has; my copy of The Lady In the Tower no longer has margins bc I covered them w/ notes and gripes about her claims. I must admit that some of my comments are a bit snarky lol. On page 16 AW wrote that Anne died a devout Catholic and in the side-margin I wrote ‘really? where’s the proof of that? no really- you cited nothing in support of this…& you say you’re a historian’ lol. Very glad that I found this amazing website w/ intelligent commenters so I have a place to talk about these things 🙂 Thanks guys!
4:23 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
eparrillo said
I have actually enjoyed a few of PG’s novels, but the reader definitely must let go of what factual information they know of the era, take her work with a grain of salt, and take it for what it is- historical FICTION. Her work hasn’t nearly aggravated me as much as Weir’s has; my copy of The Lady In the Tower no longer has margins bc I covered them w/ notes and gripes about her claims. I must admit that some of my comments are a bit snarky lol. On page 16 AW wrote that Anne died a devout Catholic and in the side-margin I wrote ‘really? where’s the proof of that? no really- you cited nothing in support of this…& you say you’re a historian’ lol. Very glad that I found this amazing website w/ intelligent commenters so I have a place to talk about these things 🙂 Thanks guys!
I think that Alison’s Weir interpetation of Anne dying a devout Catholic, has to be intended by what was considered by the English’s church’s opinion as Catholic.. When Henry told the Pope to do one and named himself as head of the Church he still considered himself to be a Catholic, but without all the bells and smells and all the other parapinalia that were observed by the Pope’s people. Henry’s form of Catholism was much more diluted where you spoke to God directly and not through and intermediatry or through Saints. So from that point of view the book is right Anne did die a Catholic, but as a Church of England Catholic not a Popish one. That’s what I think anyway.
Totally agree about SWMNBN books although at times extremely frustrating and jaggling to the old nerves at times they are at the end of the day just storybooks about the historical era not to be taken as a true representation of what went on. Although to be fair she does sometimes come out with some thought provoking scenios. However for the most part they are simply just to be read as purely from an entertainment standpoint.. It passes a few hours especially when you had have a nice long hot soak in peace, and gives the old grey matter a rest from reading real life true and trusted historical facts, such as Dr Dave, and Dave Loades.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
9:31 am
April 17, 2012
Offline
Yeah my first boyfriend in highschool was catholic, he didnt ACT like a catholic!!
8:27 pm
February 24, 2012
Offline
I have a friend that was arguing some points from the TOBG novel with me. She said that PG must know what she’s talking about because she’s an historian and if I didn’t believe her then to go and check out her website. So I did. Here is the beginning of her biography:
“Philippa Gregory was an established historian and writer when she discovered her interest in the Tudor period and wrote the novel The Other Boleyn Girl which was made into a tv drama, and a major film.” This makes it sound like she really does know what she’s talking about. No wonder people get the wrong idea. 
I guess she puts herself right up on the same level as Ives and Starkey. 
1:35 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Yes we were discussing that Janet. I very much doubt she actually thinks she’s on a level with Starkey or Ives. She’s got a doctorate in literature, she studied history, and she has apparently taught at several universities as well. I suspect she lectured on literature, maybe that’s where they the “professor” from if that’s actually what they call her. I don’t know I’ve never seen her on TV saying she’s s historian. Yes they called her doctor on the non-fiction book she published with Baldwin and Jones. She doesn’t write her own publicity, no author does and most of them don’t do background content on their website either. Most of their websites are run by their publisher if they’re a successful author who doen’t need to do their own grunt work. She also probably has some sort of honorary doctorate which they like giving to authors, I know J.K Rowling also has an honorary doctorate from a university she wrote a couple of papers for. Maybe the Queen will make her a knight.
Just on the Philippa says Anne was guilty thing, since we’re back to PG again. In Boleyn Inheritance Catherine Carey categorically states to Kat Howard that she think Anne was “not a witch, not guilty of adultery, not guilty of treason” It’s been a long time since I read it so I can’t remember it exactly. But it’s enough to make a reader think, as Catherine was depicted as being in the Tower with Anne in the first book.
I think people forget that TOBG was written through Mary’s eyes, and Mary and Anne had a love/hate relationship. Mary wishes Anne would drown on the boat on the way over from France. Mary draws her own conclusions that Anne was guilty of incest from two things in the book, George having a guilty look on his face and Anne saying she went to the gates of hell to conceive a baby. That wasn’t actually enough to convince me, having never really read anything on Anne before that book, I never for a moment thought she was guilty. I thought I was reading a fictional book. The witchcraft business, Stafford convinces Mary of that. If you want to look a little more closely at Anne’s character, there are a few instances in the book where Anne’s mask ‘slips’ and she acts like a human being. There’s a few times earlier in the book that happens in regards to Harry Percy.
I don’t agree with the Mary was a saint spin either. Mary was an absolute bitch in that book. The main theme in the book is sisterly rivalry and social climbing at court. Mary often hates herself, Anne and her family. The next book TBI places the blame squarely on Henry’s shoulders.
And with all of that said, I don’t actually particularly like those books. But the generalisations people make about them surprise me.
2:18 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
D’Hoffryn has a doctorate, he’s entitled to be called Doctor regardless of the setting. He generally doesn’t use the title exect when writing professional papers.
It is very dis-ingenous for SWMNBN and her publishers to imply that her PhD is in history however.
It's always bunnies.
11:55 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
This is slightly off the topic, but it does involve Mary. As we all know Henry re-instated by an act of Parliament that both Mary and Elizabeth would rule if Edward died without Male issue. When Eddy was dying Northumberland persuaded him to disinherit both Mary and Elizabeth and name Jane Grey as his heir instead.. Was that order verified by Parliament? or was it just on what Eddy had been railroaded into and his privy council bullied into by Northumberland? The reason I ask is because I’ve recently read that Northumberland believed that Eddy’s order to disinherit Mary and Elizabeth on the grounds that they were both bastards superceded the act of Parliament made by Henry in 1544.
Northumberland truely believed that his plan for the succession and ultimetly his hold on power had credence.
However this is where I pick Louise’s brain.. Although Eddy and the Privy council had agreed to the succession of Jane, in order to make her claim stick he would have had to have the 1544 Parliament ruling overturned surely? On what grounds could he have done that? Could he have claimed that Henry wasn’t compus mentus when he asked for the 1544 ruling? How could he prove that?
Mary as we know issued an act of Parliament in 1554? overturning the great divorce etc and going to a lot of trouble too of getting herself as the only legitimate heir to H8 crown, and thus bastardizing Elizabeth again. Did Mary actually name Elizabeth as her heir when she knew she was dying?
I find it strange that although Mary overturned the great divorce etc. she didn’t appear to overturn H8 1544 Act of Parliament. Or did she?
However it was the 1544 act that gave Elizabeth the right to the throne, despite Mary QOS and Philip of Spain’s claims to the contrary.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:50 am
June 15, 2012
Offline
I’m uncertain whether Northumberland had the act of parliament overturned to install Lady Jane when Edward died or not, but Mary swept in on a tide of public support so I suppose it was a moot point.
As far as Elizabeth is concerned, apparently Mary could not bring herself to acknowledge her as heir, but Elizabeth was the majority choice and got it by default.
3:21 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
There is a lot of evidence that Edward was in fact instrumental in writing his “deuice” for the succession and that he had produced several versions from Febuary 1553 onwards. In each of these “deuices'”the claims of Mary and Elizabeth as well as that of Margaret Tudor’s children were supplanted by that of the male children of Frances Brandon, of her daughters,and of the daughter of her sister Eleanor in that order.
It was only the later versions which had Lady Jane succeeding as queen .
See Ives Lady Jane Grey, A Tudor Mystery for more details.
It's always bunnies.
1:35 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Anyanka said
There is a lot of evidence that Edward was in fact instrumental in writing his “deuice” for the succession and that he had produced several versions from Febuary 1553 onwards. In each of these “deuices'”the claims of Mary and Elizabeth as well as that of Margaret Tudor’s children were supplanted by that of the male children of Frances Brandon, of her daughters,and of the daughter of her sister Eleanor in that order.
It was only the later versions which had Lady Jane succeeding as queen .
See Ives Lady Jane Grey, A Tudor Mystery for more details.
Even so that device would have surely had to have gone through Parliament to make it legal? Therefore Eddy and his lackey Northumberland would have had to come up with some strong watertight evidence to either overturn or amend the 1544 act, in favour of Eddy’s plans?
The fact that Eddy’s whole reign was overseen by self seeking greedy parasites, his whims, wants and wherefores would have just been seen as a little boy doing what his guardians wanted to keep them happy, and perhaps to spare Barnaby a whipping if Eddy didn’t agree with their plans.
Maybe this device change was entirely Eddy’s own doing he did want Jane to rule after him, and maybe if it wasn’t for the fact that Northumberland had forced Jane to marry his son etc his plan may have actually succeeded. But I feel that the whole device change was orcastrated and managed by Northumberland. A power hungry maniac who paid the price of his machinations.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:41 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
I haven’t read enough on this period to form any opinions yet really, just a short bio on Jane Grey. I’ve been having a look at Susan’s blog Bo, I thought you might like to have a read of some articles, they’ve very interesting. She researched the Dudley’s and Grey’s a great deal for her last book. This one is on Northumberland
8:10 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
This is slightly off the topic, but it does involve Mary. As we all know Henry re-instated by an act of Parliament that both Mary and Elizabeth would rule if Edward died without Male issue. When Eddy was dying Northumberland persuaded him to disinherit both Mary and Elizabeth and name Jane Grey as his heir instead.. Was that order verified by Parliament? Mary as we know issued an act of Parliament in 1554? overturning the great divorce etc and going to a lot of trouble too of getting herself as the only legitimate heir to H8 crown, and thus bastardizing Elizabeth again. Did Mary actually name Elizabeth as her heir when she knew she was dying?
I find it strange that although Mary overturned the great divorce etc. she didn’t appear to overturn H8 1544 Act of Parliament. Or did she?
However it was the 1544 act that gave Elizabeth the right to the throne, despite Mary QOS and Philip of Spain’s claims to the contrary.
Boleyn,
No, the order was not verified by Parliament. Northumberland was going to have Parliament give it the okay when next they met, which I think was to be in September. Edward died in July. Mary did not overturn the 1544 Act of Parliament. I don’t think Mary actually named Elizabeth as her successor. She followed her Father’s desires. Directly after Mary’s death, the coronation ring was taken to Elizabeth.
1:28 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Thanks Sharon Craig and I were arguing about this the other night. He just googled the topic on his phone while I was reading on the couch and seemed to get the impression that Parliament had okayed the change to the succession and then “tunred” on Edward. Of course I should get off my bum and read more about it 
But my partner doesn’t like Mary Tudor, we’re always getting into arguments about it
2:10 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Sharon said
Boleyn said
This is slightly off the topic, but it does involve Mary. As we all know Henry re-instated by an act of Parliament that both Mary and Elizabeth would rule if Edward died without Male issue. When Eddy was dying Northumberland persuaded him to disinherit both Mary and Elizabeth and name Jane Grey as his heir instead.. Was that order verified by Parliament? Mary as we know issued an act of Parliament in 1554? overturning the great divorce etc and going to a lot of trouble too of getting herself as the only legitimate heir to H8 crown, and thus bastardizing Elizabeth again. Did Mary actually name Elizabeth as her heir when she knew she was dying?
I find it strange that although Mary overturned the great divorce etc. she didn’t appear to overturn H8 1544 Act of Parliament. Or did she?
However it was the 1544 act that gave Elizabeth the right to the throne, despite Mary QOS and Philip of Spain’s claims to the contrary.Boleyn,
No, the order was not verified by Parliament. Northumberland was going to have Parliament give it the okay when next they met, which I think was to be in September. Edward died in July. Mary did not overturn the 1544 Act of Parliament. I don’t think Mary actually named Elizabeth as her successor. She followed her Father’s desires. Directly after Mary’s death, the coronation ring was taken to Elizabeth.
Thank you Sharon…
Mary was a really complex charater, the more I read about her, the more I just don’t get her. She seemed to have a love/hate relationship with Elizabeth. Again this is another part of Mary I don’t get.. Lady Jane Grey was a threat for sure, but Elizabeth was the greater threat as she was next in line per the 1544 act. Why execute Jane? Yes I know Renard tried all he could to get Mary to execute Elizabeth, but he later changed his mind.
Why? Did Philip love Mary? How did Philip feel towards Elizabeth?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
6:26 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Olga said
Thanks Sharon Craig and I were arguing about this the other night. He just googled the topic on his phone while I was reading on the couch and seemed to get the impression that Parliament had okayed the change to the succession and then “tunred” on Edward. Of course I should get off my bum and read more about it
Olga,
I think what Craig may have seen was that the privy council agreed with Northumberland that Jane would succeed Edward. They were all for it until Mary took over. Once Mary took back the throne the council turned on Northumberland and said it was all his fault that Jane had been named queen.
5:55 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
Sharon said
Boleyn said
This is slightly off the topic, but it does involve Mary. As we all know Henry re-instated by an act of Parliament that both Mary and Elizabeth would rule if Edward died without Male issue. When Eddy was dying Northumberland persuaded him to disinherit both Mary and Elizabeth and name Jane Grey as his heir instead.. Was that order verified by Parliament? Mary as we know issued an act of Parliament in 1554? overturning the great divorce etc and going to a lot of trouble too of getting herself as the only legitimate heir to H8 crown, and thus bastardizing Elizabeth again. Did Mary actually name Elizabeth as her heir when she knew she was dying?
I find it strange that although Mary overturned the great divorce etc. she didn’t appear to overturn H8 1544 Act of Parliament. Or did she?
However it was the 1544 act that gave Elizabeth the right to the throne, despite Mary QOS and Philip of Spain’s claims to the contrary.Boleyn,
No, the order was not verified by Parliament. Northumberland was going to have Parliament give it the okay when next they met, which I think was to be in September. Edward died in July. Mary did not overturn the 1544 Act of Parliament. I don’t think Mary actually named Elizabeth as her successor. She followed her Father’s desires. Directly after Mary’s death, the coronation ring was taken to Elizabeth.Thank you Sharon…
Mary was a really complex charater, the more I read about her, the more I just don’t get her. She seemed to have a love/hate relationship with Elizabeth. Again this is another part of Mary I don’t get.. Lady Jane Grey was a threat for sure, but Elizabeth was the greater threat as she was next in line per the 1544 act. Why execute Jane? Yes I know Renard tried all he could to get Mary to execute Elizabeth, but he later changed his mind.
Why? Did Philip love Mary? How did Philip feel towards Elizabeth?
Personally, I don’t think Philip loved either Mary or Elizabeth. he played the loving consort to Mary, partly because his father Charles, Mary’s cousin Carlos, wanted the alliance with England and partly to further his own desires of French conquests.
IMO, Elizabeth was seen by the Spanish as the default heir due to her supposed illegitimacy and the various acts of Parliment enshrined during H8’s reign. I am of the opinion that several Spanish ambassadors thought she was as easy a touch as Mary was and would fall in line with the pre-eminant power of the era simply because they had no concept of Elizabeth’s education and real feelings because she was an expert at hiding her essential self.
It's always bunnies.
