Neil Kemp said

We probably have to beg to differ on a lot of issues, but then again that after all is what this site is all about, the ability to debate and disagree on many subjects whilst still having respect for the other person’s viewpoint. I hope to debate many subjects on here in the future, it might just keep me sane at this moment in time.

Absoluely! Let’s try to agree to disagree without personal insults.

History doesn’t change because of fiction Louise, it changes because of historians.
The genre of historical fiction stretches to subgenres of fantasy and romance and I don’t believe it insinuates there is a element of fact in it. I’m not going to comment further because I am finding this tiring. I am going to read more of The Two Towers, and firmly believe that hobbits and elves existed, and get much joy from it.

As for you ms Boleyn, as a bookseller I do not condone the lining of birdcages with books

Olga said

History doesn’t change because of fiction Louise, it changes because of historians.
The genre of historical fiction stretches to subgenres of fantasy and romance and I don’t believe it insinuates there is a element of fact in it. I’m not going to comment further because I am finding this tiring. I am going to read more of The Two Towers, and firmly believe that hobbits and elves existed, and get much joy from it.

As for you ms Boleyn, as a bookseller I do not condone the lining of birdcages with books

LOL Olga.. It was the chipmunk cage and I thought it was a very apt usage of a book that was crap to get covered in crap.

Neil/Olga Totally agree. The factual reads are there to challenge the reader, the fictional reads are to give your brain a rest.
Slap on wrist from Olga for using a book for something other than reading.

Louise, at no point did I ever mention your name and frankly I’ve got better things to worry about at the moment, so please refrain from personal abuse.
You believe what you want to believe, I’m past caring. To avoid possible future unpleasantness I’ll just avoid answering any topic you post on.
Now I’m just off to scatter my Mother’s ashes, so as I’ve said I’ve got enough problems in the real world. You get on with yours and I’ll get on with mine. Goodbye.

I personally have always enjoyed Phillipppa Gregory’s books but that is because I have long learned just to take whatever she says with a pinch of salt and just enjoy the creative liscence the same way I did with The Tudors and other books or tv shows that have twisted the truth. I however cannot stand to listen to an interview or read any of her notes at the back because it would annoy me to read anythiing that suggests Gregory is writings facts! I would never recommend her books to someone who isn’t very familiar with the actual history of the subject she is writing about however I would have no problem with a history lover reading the books for a little chuckle if they are already aware of the facts. My only hope is that when I read The White Queen and The Lady of the Rivers, they both indicated that Jacqueeta and Elizabeth Woodville where practising witches with real magic powers. Therefore I hope it will indicate to more readers that these aren’t the types of books that you should take as fact snce even a complete novice in history would understand that its not possible for them to have magic powers and doubt the validity of the other “facts” Gregory claims to present.

Yes I know what you mean. That is why I stay away from the author’s notes and any interview she does. She has no right to call herself a historian when she gets the most simplest facts wrong. Like I said in my last post, I just hope that people will start to realise now that the books are far from fact with Gregory actually suggesting Elizabeth Woodville really was a witch. A gullible person may believe that Anne and George had an incestuous relationship, which is infuriating. However there is no way that anyone can believe that someone has magic powers. Therefore Gregory may have finally undone herself leading her fanbase to seek the real truth on her earlier books “crosses fingers”.

Mandersdown S.W.M.N.B.N irritates a lot of people. The woman is tuppence short of a shilling in my opinion. Although to give her a little bit od credit, albeit grudgingly I did enjoy The Red Queen and the White Queen books. But for the most part her books are mindless pap, and yet I read them, well I like a good laugh. Mind you I’ve only got to look in the mirror to go into hysterics, but then that is a whole new ball game.
She makes me want to leap through the screen and give her the biggest shaking she will ever have. I watched the last days of Anne Boleyn the other night (finally) and when she came on I muted it and only unmuted it when she had finished speaking as was wiping her mouth.

mandersdawn said

In a Q & A in the back of TOBG, she is asked how she researched “such a far ranging story”. She answered that she “always start(s) by reading the secondary sources” and “aim(s) to read all of the major works”.

By “secondary sources” I assume she means “Any old rubbishy gossip Chapuys & co wrote about”.

PG depicted George as a homosexual, which wasn’t accurate, but he was still a relatively decent man in TOBG. I’m more annoyed that she tried to make the incest charge plausible, but that aside George wasn’t a bad person in her book. Mantel and Michael Hirst have done far more damage to George’s honour and reputation than PG.